gdoc_cli

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions shell-less argument passing but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as destructive actions, authentication needs, or error handling, which is insufficient for a generic CLI tool with many subcommands.

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 concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, and the tool's generic nature with 20 subcommands, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error behavior, or the scope of allowable commands, leaving agents underinformed.

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 50%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The command parameter has an enum without any explanation of what each subcommand does, and the args parameter's note is already in the schema. The description does not explain how parameters affect behavior.

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 runs an allowlisted gdoc command for options not covered by typed tools, with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it fills gaps.

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 explicitly says 'for options not covered by typed tools,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool versus the typed siblings. It also notes that arguments are passed directly without a shell, implying safety, but lacks explicit 'when-not' statements or prerequisites.

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