Google Workspace MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It adds some context: it describes pagination via 'page_token', default values (e.g., 'max_results: 20'), and interactions between parameters (e.g., 'show_hidden must also be true to show tasks completed in first party clients'). However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool with 13 parameters.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter documentation. It's appropriately sized for a tool with many parameters, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'Optional[str]' could be streamlined). Overall, it's efficient and front-loaded, with every sentence adding necessary information.

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 the complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, schema coverage 0%), the description does a good job of providing context. It explains all parameters thoroughly and notes an output schema exists ('Returns: str'), so it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral context like auth or error handling, which slightly reduces completeness for a tool of this scope.

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 description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It comprehensively documents all 13 parameters with names, types, defaults, and semantic details (e.g., 'RFC 3339 timestamp' for date bounds, interactions like 'show_hidden must also be true'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'List all tasks in a specific task list.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('tasks in a specific task list'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_task' or 'search_custom', which could also retrieve tasks, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_task' (for single tasks) or 'search_custom' (for filtered searches), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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