GASSAPI MCP Server

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 action ('List all folders') but lacks details on permissions required, pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'tree view' entails structurally. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all folders for current project') and adds a key optional feature ('with optional tree view'). There is no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with four parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, tree view output), error handling, or behavioral constraints like permissions. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured support, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., projectId as optional with fallback, includeTree for hierarchical view). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optional tree view,' which aligns with the includeTree parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('folders'), specifying scope ('for current project') and an optional feature ('with optional tree view'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_folder_details (which retrieves details of a specific folder) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list_* tools (e.g., list_endpoints, list_flows).

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 when to use list_folders versus get_folder_details (for specific folder details) or create_folder (for creating new folders), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'for current project,' which is covered in the parameter schema.

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