Google Workspace MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool lists spreadsheets 'the user has access to,' which implies permission-based filtering, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what happens if no spreadsheets are found. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides parameter documentation in a clear 'Args' section, and concludes with return information. Every sentence serves a purpose - no wasted words. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter information more seamlessly rather than as separate sections.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there's an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a listing tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should do more to explain behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, or pagination. The parameter documentation helps, but overall completeness is adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by documenting both parameters in the 'Args' section with types and purposes. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond basic documentation - no examples, constraints (e.g., email format validation, max_results range), or relationship between parameters. This meets the baseline for having parameter information but doesn't provide rich semantic context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lists spreadsheets from Google Drive that the user has access to.' This is a specific verb ('Lists') + resource ('spreadsheets from Google Drive') with scope ('that the user has access to'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_drive_items' or 'search_drive_files', which likely have overlapping functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_drive_items' and 'search_drive_files' available, there's no indication of when this spreadsheet-specific listing tool is preferred over more general file listing or search tools. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.