Hardened Google Workspace MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'searches' and 'checks', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'public link sharing enabled' entails (e.g., link visibility settings). The return value description is minimal, lacking details on format or potential outcomes.

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 clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. It's concise at three sentences, with no redundant information. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more fluidly into the main description for better flow.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and detailed return semantics. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to fully explain returns, but it should provide more operational guidance.

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 details. The description includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly describes the two parameters ('user_google_email' and 'file_name'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., email validation, file name matching) or constraints, leaving gaps in understanding.

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: 'Searches for a file by name and checks if it has public link sharing enabled.' This specifies the verb ('searches' and 'checks'), resource ('file'), and scope ('public link sharing'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_drive_file_permissions' or 'get_drive_shareable_link', which might 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 'search_drive_files', 'get_drive_file_permissions', and 'get_drive_shareable_link', there's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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