Show this project’s gdocs defaults

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads a project configuration file and shows the effective defaults and file location. 'Show' implies no side effects, and the specificity about output (account/folder and file path) is transparent. It doesn't cover edge cases like a missing config, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and then specifies the resource and additional output (file location). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and what it shows (defaults and file location), which serves as a high-level return description. It could mention error behavior or fallback defaults, but this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema is empty and fully covers the parameter surface. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist, but it clarifies what the tool returns in context of the project configuration.

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 action ('Show'), the specific resource ('.gdocs-mcp.json defaults'), and the scope ('current working directory'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_project_default' by focusing on the read/display side, and from 'list_accounts' by targeting project-level configuration.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to see the effective project defaults (account/folder) and the config file location. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read-only nature is distinguishable from write-style siblings like 'set_project_default'.

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