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 states the tool lists labels but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, making it easy to parse. It's concise with no redundant information, though the 'Returns' section could be more integrated 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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage context, which are important for a tool with no annotations to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'user_google_email' as required, adding meaning beyond the input schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's format or constraints, such as whether it must be a valid email or if it supports aliases, limiting its helpfulness.

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 all labels in the user's Gmail account.' It specifies the verb ('Lists') and resource ('labels in the user's Gmail account'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_gmail_label' or 'list_gmail_filters', which prevents a perfect 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 siblings like 'search_gmail_messages' or 'get_gmail_message_content', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without explicit direction.

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