google-workspace-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool follows a clear 'service_action' pattern and targets a distinct resource operation (e.g., Gmail search vs send vs draft). No overlapping tools exist; even within large services like Sheets, each action has a unique purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use snake_case with consistent Google-service prefixes (gmail_, drive_, docs_, sheets_, etc.) followed by a descriptive action verb. The naming is uniform and predictable across all 108 tools.
Tool Count1/5
108 tools is an extreme count, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for 'extreme mismatch'. Even for a multi-service Google Workspace integration, this volume overwhelms agents and makes tool selection impractical.
Completeness5/5
Each service has broad CRUD/lifecycle coverage: Gmail covers send/read/labels/filters/vacation; Drive covers search/read/create/permissions/trash; Sheets covers read/write/format/charts; and Calendar covers events/freebusy/recurring. No obvious missing operations for typical workflows.
Average 3.2/5 across 108 of 108 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely restates the name ('Delete a Gmail label') without mentioning irreversibility, side effects on messages, permissions required, or failure conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence, but it is under-specified and essentially repeats the tool name. It lacks useful structure and does not fully earn its place given the minimal information it conveys.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there are no annotations and no output schema details (though indicated as present), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what happens on success, side effects, or what label_id refers to, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'label_id' parameter—how to obtain it, its format, or its meaning. The single sentence adds no parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource 'Gmail label', making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish between deleting a label definition versus removing a label from a message, which is relevant given sibling tools like gmail_modify_labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or edge cases like whether the label must not be in use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete a calendar event' and fails to disclose whether this is permanent, if it affects recurring events, requires special permissions, or returns a confirmation. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of one clear sentence. However, it is under-specified to the point of being almost a tautology, so it doesn't score higher.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a deletion tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't address irreversibility, calendar_id behavior, or what happens to the event, leaving critical context unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. event_id and calendar_id are self-explanatory only in the broadest sense; the default value of 'primary' for calendar_id is not explained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('calendar event'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It is distinct from sibling tools like creating, updating, or getting events, though it doesn't elaborate on scope or effects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as calendar_update_event or calendar_trash (if applicable). The description is only a single generic sentence, offering no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to cover safety or side effects, and the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether settings are overwritten, how enable=false behaves, time zone handling, or permission requirements. The description only restates the action without explaining consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and configuration options. This is not effective conciseness; it omits essential structure and guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters), the absence of annotations, and an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how to disable the responder, the meaning of time windows, or the relationship with gmail_get_vacation, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the 8 parameters. It provides no meaning for fields like enable, start_time, end_time, domain_only, or contacts_only, leaving the agent without any clue about their semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the resource ('Gmail vacation/auto-reply responder'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling gmail_get_vacation by indicating a write operation versus a read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as gmail_get_vacation or other gmail tools. The usage is only implied by the verb 'Set' and the resource name, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the action itself. With no annotations provided, the description fails to mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing named ranges), permission requirements, error behavior, or any constraints on usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is brief, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 required parameters. It lacks necessary detail about how to specify the range, making it inadequate rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the tool is complex enough that a one-sentence description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the coordinate system, whether named ranges can be overwritten, or what the output format is, despite the existence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining what any of the 7 parameters (e.g., sheet_id, start_row, end_col) mean. It only mentions the high-level resource, leaving parameter semantics entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a named range in a spreadsheet.' It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('named range'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like sheets_add_sheet and sheets_add_chart by explicitly mentioning 'named range'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 only states a simple operation without mentioning side effects (e.g., modifying the presentation, potential overwrite), required permissions, or the result structure. This is a significant omission for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters, so the brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail. It earns its place but does not provide adequate substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values (though an output schema exists), default behaviors, or how the table is inserted (e.g., position, sizing). The description leaves critical context to be inferred from the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter context. It does not explain the meaning of rows/columns, positioning (x_pt, y_pt), sizing (width_pt, height_pt), or required IDs, leaving the agent to guess what each parameter controls.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Insert a table') and the target resource ('onto a slide'), identifying the primary purpose. It is specific enough to distinguish from other insert tools (e.g., slides_insert_image, slides_insert_shape) by naming the object type, though it does not explicitly differentiate its scope or context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as slides_insert_shape or docs_insert_table. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where the tool would be inappropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the fact that a task list is created, without mentioning side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what the response looks like. This is extremely minimal and does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is not verbose, but it is under-specified. It essentially restates the tool name without adding useful detail. While conciseness is good, the description does not earn its place because it adds no information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter creation tool, but the description is still insufficient given the absence of annotations and parameter documentation. It does not explain the return value or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent without enough context to fully understand the tool's operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'title' with 0% schema description coverage. The description 'Create a new task list.' does not mention the title parameter at all, nor does it explain its format, constraints, or role. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new task list.' clearly states the action and resource. It is not vague, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tasks_create (which likely creates a task within a list) or tasks_list_tasklists. The purpose is clear, but the differentiation is only implicit via the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it does not say to use this when creating a new list as opposed to adding a task to an existing list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that this is a mutating operation, how the index parameter affects insertion, or any side effects on existing content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient, but it's under-specification rather than true conciseness. It omits necessary details and doesn't provide any structural clues about parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description is far too thin. It doesn't explain the role of 'index', constraints on rows/columns, or any edge cases. The presence of sibling insert tools and the lack of differentiation make the context incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage from the description. The description mentions no parameters at all, leaving the meaning of 'index', 'rows', 'columns', and 'document_id' entirely to the schema, which only provides types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Insert') and the resource ('a table into a Google Doc'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_insert_text or docs_insert_image by the resource type, though it doesn't elaborate on insertion specifics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, placement considerations, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states 'Copy a file' with no details about whether permissions are preserved, whether the copy goes to the same folder by default, or whether it creates a new file ID. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is extremely concise and easy to parse, which earns a high score for conciseness despite lacking substance in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though its content is not shown). The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent: it does not explain the required file_id, the optional name and folder_id defaults, or what the returned output represents. Some context is inferable from the tool name, but the description leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (name, file_id, folder_id). The agent receives no additional context about what these parameters mean or how they affect the copy operation, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the specific action (copy) and resource (file in Google Drive), which is enough to distinguish it from unrelated siblings like drive_trash or gmail_send. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from drive_create_file, which could be ambiguous in some contexts, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as drive_create_file or drive_export. It does not mention any prerequisites, destination constraints, or scenarios where copying is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral implications, but it only states the action and lists examples. It does not mention whether existing formatting is overwritten, the effect of the bg_color default, permissions required, or what the response contains. The behavioral profile is largely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but the trailing 'etc.' is vague and adds little structural value. It front-loads the main verb but does not provide organized detail about the rule types or other configuration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Conditional formatting is a complex feature requiring explanation of rule types, value handling, and range application. The description provides almost no context beyond the tool name itself, and with no annotations or schema explanations, it is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value for the rule_type parameter by listing example values, but it fails to explain other required parameters (e.g., values, spreadsheet_id, sheet_id, or row/column indices) or how they interact. This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Add conditional formatting') and lists example rule types, making it distinct from sibling tools like sheets_add_chart and sheets_add_named_range. However, it does not explicitly mention the target spreadsheet or range, so it falls slightly short of a fully scoped purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as sheets_batch_update or sheets_add_sheet. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it merely restates the action implied by the tool name. It does not indicate whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or what occurs if the task does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. It lacks necessary context, so it is not appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has moderate complexity with a required parameter and optional parameter, but the description is minimal. It does not explain parameter usage, deletion effects, or required prerequisites, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either task_id or tasklist_id. It adds no meaning beyond the field names and types already present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a task' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like tasks_update or tasks_move. It unambiguously states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, tasks_clear_completed is a sibling that also performs deletions, but the description offers no comparison or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It lists allowed types but does not explain side effects like whether the question is appended or inserted at a specific index, whether options are required for choice types, or any permission requirements. The relationship between the 'paragraph' boolean and 'question_type' is left ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise, but it under-specifies the tool's behavior. The list of types is useful, but the lack of any structured guidance makes it feel incomplete rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, but the description fails to explain key aspects like index semantics, option requirements, or how paragraph interacts with question_type. For a moderate-complexity tool with no annotation support, this description is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly in varied scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only lists type names, which loosely maps to question_type. It does not explain parameters like index, options, required, or paragraph, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a question to a form') and lists supported question types, giving a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like forms_update_question, but the verb 'add' makes the core purpose clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., forms_update_question for modifying existing questions). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a form_id, or when to choose this over forms_create or other form-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not state pagination behavior, permission requirements, or the exact nature of the returned records. Minimal context beyond the basic verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it could have included a bit more detail without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally viable but lacks context about the optional max_results parameter, usage context, or return details. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description fails to orient the agent regarding the tool's scope and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, max_results, is absent from the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameter, forcing the agent to rely solely on the parameter name for interpretation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (past conference records), clarified further with 'meeting history'. It is distinct from sibling tools like meet_list_participants or meet_get_artifacts, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios, exclusions, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer when to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that formatting is applied, but does not explain whether unspecified properties are left unchanged, how indices are interpreted (zero-based UTF-16 units), or whether existing formatting is overwritten. It also does not mention potential side effects like errors on invalid ranges or the need for document editing permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, its brevity comes at the cost of essential details, making it more under-specified than truly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description provides only a high-level summary. It fails to address critical context such as index semantics, optional vs required parameters, color formatting, and behavioral edge cases. The existence of an output schema doesn't mitigate the lack of input/usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions bold, italic, underline, font size, and color (presumably foreground_color), but omits strikethrough entirely. It also does not explain the semantics of document_id, start_index, end_index, or the expected format for color values (e.g., CSS hex/rgb). This is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's action ('Apply formatting') and its target resource ('a text range in a Google Doc'). It lists the main formatting types (bold, italic, underline, font size, color), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_insert_text or docs_insert_bullets. However, it omits strikethrough, which is also supported, and doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling formatting tools (e.g., slides_format_text).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the document must already exist, or that indices must be valid). It does not mention any exclusions or limitations, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions a mutation ('Create') but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when as_google_doc is false or when content/mime_type are provided. Minimal context is added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Both sentences earn their place, though more detail could be added without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and a simple but ambiguous profile. The description only covers the as_google_doc flag and leaves the other parameters undefined. Even with an output schema present, the input semantics are too incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It only adds meaning for as_google_doc, leaving content, folder_id, mime_type, and name (beyond its obvious role) unexplained. This is insufficient given the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Create a new file in Drive') with a specific resource. It distinguishes from some siblings like drive_create_folder or drive_copy_file, though it could be confused with docs_create for Google Doc creation. Overall purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only implies usage via the core action and the as_google_doc tip. It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., docs_create for creating Google Docs) and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states the basic action and formats, omitting whether the operation is read-only, what the return payload is (binary/base64), whether authentication is required, or how unsupported file types are handled. This fails to meet the transparency burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The format list is efficient, but the brevity sacrifices essential detail, making it more under-specified than truly concise. Still, it earns its place as a clear one-liner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two required parameters and an output schema, but no annotations. The description is too sparse: it does not explain exact MIME type usage, eligible source file types, or the nature of the output. While the output schema covers return values, other contextual aspects remain unaddressed, leaving the description incomplete for a moderately complex export tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description partially clarifies mime_type by listing example formats, but it does not specify whether full MIME type strings (e.g., 'application/pdf') are required, potentially misleading an agent to pass 'PDF'. It also gives no guidance on file_id, and with 0% schema description coverage, the lack of precise parameter semantics is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (export), the resource (Google Workspace file), and the target output formats (PDF, DOCX, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_read_file that read content natively, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope limits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the source file must be a Google Docs/Sheets/Slides file), nor does it contrast with drive_read_file or drive_copy_file. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'export'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the allowed roles but does not mention side effects such as sending notification emails, requiring owner permissions, or whether it overwrites existing permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple signature and an output schema, so return format is not needed. However, the description lacks usage guidance, side effects, and parameter semantics. With no annotations, it is inadequate for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides values for the 'role' parameter, but leaves 'file_id', 'email', and 'send_notification' unexplained beyond their names. This partial compensation is insufficient for full parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a verb and resource ('Share a Drive file'), and enumerates the valid roles. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like drive_list_permissions or drive_delete_permission, but the action of sharing is distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that sharing grants access, nor does it exclude use cases like removing or listing permissions. The description lacks any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects existing messages, requires special permissions, or what the response/return value looks like. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of five words, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it is under-specified in terms of content, which is a separate issue from conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations, but an output schema present), the description is still too minimal. It does not explain return values, side effects, or prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context from sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, filter_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention filter_id at all, nor explain how to obtain it or what format it should be in. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the tool description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a Gmail filter.' clearly identifies the verb (delete) and resource (Gmail filter), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not provide any additional scope or distinguishing details beyond the resource name, making it slightly generic compared to more detailed sibling descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_delete_label or gmail_update_filter. The description simply states the action without mentioning prerequisites, such as obtaining the filter_id from gmail_list_filters, or any context about when deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a new contact group.' without mentioning permissions, idempotency, duplicate handling, or side effects. The action is implicitly a mutation, but no additional context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core function, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, a minimal description may be acceptable. However, it lacks any context about when to use the tool or the nature of a contact group, leaving some gaps for agents unfamiliar with the domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'name' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain that the 'name' parameter specifies the group's name or any format constraints. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, the description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new contact group.' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (contact group), separating it from sibling tools like contacts_create (for contacts). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related group tools such as contacts_list_groups or contacts_modify_group_members, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives like contacts_list_groups or contacts_modify_group_members. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'find and replace' but doesn't specify whether all occurrences are replaced, case sensitivity behavior (despite the match_case parameter), or any side effects. The mutation aspect is implied but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is concise and easy to parse, but the brevity contributes to under-specification rather than being a model of efficient information delivery.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists (so return values are not needed), the description lacks contextual details about scope (e.g., all occurrences vs. first), prerequisites, permissions, or the effect on the document. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level details. It doesn't explain the meaning of document_id, find_text, replace_text, or match_case beyond what the schema properties already show. The agent has to infer semantics from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Find and replace text') and resource ('Google Doc'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like docs_insert_text and docs_append_text by indicating a replacement operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where replacement is appropriate, nor does it reference sibling tools that might be better suited for insertions or appends.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify the file, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is appropriately concise for a simple list operation. It communicates the core function without fluff, though it could include a bit more detail on parameters or usage without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the low complexity, the description lacks essential usage context. It does not mention that file_id is required, does not explain max_results, and omits any behavioral notes. The output schema exists, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the purpose of `file_id` or `max_results`. The schema only provides types and a default for max_results, leaving the agent without meaningful understanding of how to use these parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'comments on a Drive file.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_add_comment, which adds comments, and other Drive tools that handle different aspects of files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action without any context about required parameters, prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools that might be more appropriate in certain scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without revealing what happens if the file is not in the trash, whether it returns to its original location, or any permission requirements. This is minimal for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it highly concise. However, the brevity sacrifices useful details (e.g., parameter clarification), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return value details are not needed. Yet, as a write operation without annotations, the description lacks essential behavioral context (e.g., edge cases, prerequisites) and usage guidance, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the file_id parameter at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare field name, leaving the parameter's purpose and format ambiguous for an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Restore a file from the trash' uses a specific verb and resource, making the action unmistakable. It is distinct from sibling tools like drive_trash (which performs the opposite) and other Drive read/write tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the inverse relationship with drive_trash. It relies entirely on the literal meaning, offering no contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new Google Form' and does not mention what the tool returns, any side effects, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and related sibling tools, the description is extremely sparse. It fails to explain what exactly is created (e.g., an empty form shell vs. a fully configured form) or how to proceed with additional configuration. The minimal text leaves important contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not mention 'title' or 'description'. The parameter names in the schema are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool description adds no additional semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new Google Form' uses a specific verb (create) and resource (Google Form). It is clear and distinguishes the tool from siblings that read, update, or add questions to forms, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from those.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action without mentioning prerequisites or the relationship to other forms tools (e.g., using forms_add_question after creation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, error conditions (e.g., duplicate label), permissions, or idempotency. This is a minimal restatement of the tool's name, adding no behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is very brief; conciseness is good, but it sacrifices completeness in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with one parameter, the description is minimal but lacks important operational context such as typical use cases, prerequisites, or relationship to other Gmail tools. The presence of an output schema partially alleviates return-value concerns, but the description still feels incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'name' parameter at all. No information is provided about label naming constraints, uniqueness, or format, leaving the agent to guess from the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new Gmail label.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like gmail_delete_label and gmail_list_labels. It is unambiguous about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to modify an existing label via gmail_modify_labels or list labels via gmail_list_labels. There are no context cues or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the allowed chart types, which is helpful, but it does not mention any side effects, whether the operation is additive/destructive, or whether it requires an existing sheet/chart. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose ('Add a chart') followed by the relevant types list. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions. It does not clarify how to specify data_range or which sheet is targeted, and it lacks guidance on prerequisites or constraints beyond the chart type list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter semantics, but it only addresses the chart_type parameter via the types list. It provides no elaboration on spreadsheet_id, sheet_id, data_range, or title, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') with a clear resource ('a chart') and lists supported chart types, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_add_sheet or sheets_add_conditional_format. However, it does not explicitly state the target spreadsheet context, though the tool name clarifies that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites, or what to do before adding a chart (e.g., whether data_range must be formatted a certain way). The description gives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'List tasks' without mentioning whether completed tasks are included by default, how pagination works (max_results), or any ordering/filtering behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's default behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two short sentences and no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so while concise, it does not fully serve its informational purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three optional parameters with meaningful defaults (e.g., show_completed=false) and no annotations, the description is too sparse. The presence of an output schema covers return formatting, but the description does not explain how to filter results or what the default listing includes. It is minimally functional but not complete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description explains none of the three parameters. The only hint, 'Use @default for the primary list,' merely repeats the schema default for tasklist_id and adds no semantic meaning. The agent gets no explanation of max_results or show_completed, so the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List tasks') and the resource ('in a task list'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_list_tasklists (which lists task lists) and tasks_create/update/delete (which modify tasks). The additional hint 'Use @default for the primary list' reinforces a specific use case.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 only mentions a parameter value ('@default') rather than explaining scenarios where this tool is appropriate or where other task-related tools should be used instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether duplicates are allowed, whether both add and remove can be specified simultaneously, what happens if a contact doesn't exist, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is very concise, though slightly too terse for a tool with three parameters and mutation semantics, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, mutation semantics, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not cover required vs optional parameters, interaction between add_contacts and remove_contacts, or return value expectations. Even with an output schema present, the description leaves too many operational gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain parameter semantics beyond echoing 'add' and 'remove'. It fails to specify that add_contacts and remove_contacts are arrays of contact resource names, or how group_resource_name should be formatted, adding minimal value over the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs ('add', 'remove'), a resource ('contacts'), and a target ('contact group'). It distinguishes from sibling contact tools like contacts_batch_create/delete which operate on contacts themselves, not group membership.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites such as retrieving group_resource_name via contacts_list_groups or obtaining contact resource names from contacts_search, nor any indication of when modification is preferred over recreation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not explain the meaning of the 'index' parameter, potential side effects, error conditions, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, making it highly concise. It front-loads the action and resource effectively, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool requires two parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description fails to explain the critical 'index' parameter. There is no context on how the page break is inserted relative to the document content. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter semantics, making the description below the minimum viable quality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining either parameter. 'document_id' is a common pattern, but 'index' is completely ambiguous—it could be a character position, paragraph index, or something else. The description adds no value in disambiguating the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('page break in a Google Doc'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling insert tools like docs_insert_text, docs_insert_table, and docs_insert_bullets. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 a page break versus alternatives such as docs_insert_text or docs_format_text. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not detail what permission data is returned, whether inherited permissions are included, access requirements, or pagination. The minimal wording adds little beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It is immediately clear and front-loaded with the action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema present, but the description omits any behavioral context such as permission types, filtering, or return format. It is minimally viable but lacks details that would fully orient an agent, especially without annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'on a file,' which vaguely references the file_id parameter but doesn't explicitly explain that the parameter identifies the target file. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sharing permissions') with a clear target ('on a file'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_share_file and drive_delete_permission, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from drive_list_comments or drive_list_revisions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as drive_share_file or drive_delete_permission. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about how this differs from other listing tools (e.g., drive_list_comments).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 simply states the action but does not explain consequences like whether the file can be recovered, how sharing permissions are affected, or whether the operation is reversible. This leaves the agent unaware of important side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the action. It contains no fluff or redundancy, earning a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimal and incomplete for a mutation operation without annotations. It does not address recoverability, effects on sharing, or the fact that trashed files may still occupy storage. The presence of drive_untrash implies reversibility but is not stated, leaving the description under-informative for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines a single required file_id parameter with no description, and the tool description adds no meaning to it. The phrase 'a file' doesn't explicitly map to file_id or explain how to obtain/format the ID. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool moves a file to the trash, with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from related tools like drive_delete (permanent deletion) and drive_untrash (restoration), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention trade-offs such as recoverability versus permanent deletion, or when trash is preferred over delete. The description lacks context for selecting among sibling drive tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Update' without mentioning potential side effects, permissions, error conditions, or impacts on existing form data. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the core purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how item_index is used to locate the question, what title/required changes imply, or any limitations. While an output schema exists and may cover return values, the description fails to provide sufficient operational context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (title, form_id, required, item_index). The agent must rely entirely on the schema titles and types, which provide minimal semantic guidance. The description adds no value in this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing question in a form' uses a specific verb (update) and clearly identifies the resource (question within a form), distinguishing it from sibling operations like add, delete, move, or update settings. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like forms_add_question or forms_move_question. It is implied that 'existing question' is the target, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without clear decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create a Gmail filter' and lists some keys, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether it validates label IDs, what happens on invalid input, whether it overwrites existing filters, or what the return value is. The presence of an output schema partially covers return formatting, but the description adds no extra behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using a single sentence with structured braces to list fields. Every word contributes, and it's easy to scan. However, the brace notation is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer if expanded, but overall it's well-packaged.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with nested object parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain how to construct valid values, what the API expects for forward (email address format), or how to obtain label IDs. Although an output schema exists, the description doesn't provide enough context to use the tool reliably without prior Gmail API knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by enumerating valid keys for criteria ({from, to, subject, query, hasAttachment}) and action ({addLabelIds, removeLabelIds, forward}). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, but it omits types (e.g., hasAttachment is boolean, addLabelIds is an array of strings) and examples, so it's only partially helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a Gmail filter.' It also lists the primary criteria and action keys, which distinguishes it from related tools like gmail_list_filters or gmail_delete_filter. However, it doesn't elaborate on the overall behavior beyond creation, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't say when to use this tool versus alternatives, mention prerequisites (e.g., labels must exist, forwarding must be verified), or warn about potential errors. The only contextual hint is the tool name and sibling list, but that's insufficient for an agent to decide correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states the action (send) but does not mention consequences such as the draft being removed after sending, whether permissions are required, or if the operation is irreversible. This is a significant transparency gap for a state-changing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or redundancy. However, it is arguably under-specified for a tool with behavioral implications, so it loses one point for not including essential context despite being efficiently written.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it is incomplete for practical use. It omits usage context, side effects, and parameter semantics, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently invoke or reason about the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no explanation of the draft_id parameter, leaving the schema's minimal 'Draft Id' title as the only guidance. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not. The parameter name is self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but no added value is contributed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Send an existing Gmail draft' clearly states the action (send) and the resource (existing Gmail draft), making it distinct from siblings like gmail_send (sending a new message) and gmail_draft (draft management). The use of 'existing' narrows scope and clarifies it operates on drafts only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites mentioned (e.g., needing a draft_id or ensuring the draft exists). The description is purely definitional and offers no contextual decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing the tool's behavioral characteristics. It does not mention side effects (e.g., disconnecting participants), irreversibility, whether the space itself is deleted, or error conditions for non-active conferences. For a state-changing mutation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple nature and the presence of an output schema, the description should still cover more behavioral context. It lacks usage guidance, side effects, and error handling, making it incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only 'space_name' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds minimal meaning by saying 'in a meeting space,' which hints that the parameter refers to a meeting space, but it does not clarify expected format, whether it is an ID or display name, or how to obtain it. The description only weakly compensates for the schema's lack of parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'End an active conference in a meeting space.' It uses a specific verb ('end') and resource ('conference'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like meet_create_space and meet_get_space by focusing on termination. The purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the conference must be active), and no exclusions or references to related tools. The description implies usage only through the phrase 'active conference,' but does not elaborate on conditions or compare to any other meet tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns artifacts but does not mention read-only nature explicitly, permissions required, or any failure conditions. It also doesn't clarify whether the tool works with ongoing or completed conferences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. It is concise but perhaps too brief to cover necessary context. However, for the dimension of conciseness and structure, it earns a high score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, return values are covered. The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description lacks usage context and parameter semantics, and there are no annotations. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter conference_record_name has no schema description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'conference record' but doesn't explain the parameter format, how to obtain valid values, or any constraints. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'recordings, transcripts, and transcript entries for a conference record'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling meet tools like meet_get_space or meet_list_conference_records, which focus on spaces or records lists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention how to obtain a conference_record_name or that meet_list_conference_records should be used to find records first. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that indices are 0-based and end is exclusive, which is useful. However, it fails to disclose the data-loss behavior typical of merging cells (only top-left value retained) or any side effects, which is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no filler. Every word is functional and the key range semantics are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is too minimal for a 7-parameter tool with no annotations. It omits critical details about merge behavior, merge_type values, return value, and prerequisites. Given the output schema exists, the description still leaves major gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that indices are 0-based and end exclusive, directly clarifying the row/column parameters. However, merge_type is left completely undefined, and no other param details are provided, so it only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Merge cells in a sheet' which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling sheet tools like sheets_add_sheet or sheets_write. However, it lacks any extra context about the merge behavior or scope, so it is clear but not exceptionally distinctive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, so the agent receives no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that values are written, without mentioning overwrite semantics, range requirements, or consequences of the write. The example shows the values structure but not the operational behavior, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for an illustrative example. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has three required parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, yet the description provides minimal context. It fails to address overwriting, range syntax, or how to identify the spreadsheet, which are essential for correct use. The example helps but does not make the description complete for a write operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does clarify the 'values' parameter with a 2D array example, which is helpful. However, it offers no explanation of 'spreadsheet_id' or 'range', leaving most parameters semantically undocumented beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Write values') and resource ('a Google Sheet'), with a concrete example of the values format. It is not explicit about overwriting versus appending, so it doesn't fully distinguish from siblings like sheets_append, but the verb 'write' is unambiguous enough to earn a 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use sheets_write instead of alternatives such as sheets_append or sheets_clear. There are no mentions of exclusions or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'insert a shape' but does not explain how the shape is placed (e.g., default position, sizing), whether it replaces existing content, or what happens with invalid shape types. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is concise, with useful examples of shape types. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification for a 7-parameter tool, so it is not impeccably structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and only a skeletal description, the context is incomplete. An agent would not know how to correctly set positions or sizes, or even that presentation_id and slide_id are required. The output schema exists but does not reduce the need for basic usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by providing example values for the shape_type parameter, but it ignores all other parameters (x_pt, y_pt, width_pt, height_pt, presentation_id, slide_id). No explanation of units, defaults, or which parameters are required beyond what the schema already specifies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool inserts a shape onto a slide, with a specific verb and resource. It lists example shape types (RECTANGLE, ELLIPSE, TRIANGLE, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling insert tools like slides_insert_image or slides_insert_table.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for geometric shapes only, nor does it point to other insert tools for images or tables. Context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Clear all completed tasks' which implies a destructive, irreversible action, but it does not explicitly warn that tasks will be permanently deleted, mention any auth requirements, or describe the effect on the task list. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it is almost too terse—for a destructive operation, additional context would be expected, but the conciseness itself is not penalized heavily because every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), but the description is minimal. It fails to explain the permanence of the clear action, whether it only affects the specified list, or any side effects. Given that there are no annotations and the description is the only source of behavior, it is insufficiently complete even for a straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'from a task list' which implies that tasklist_id identifies the target list, but this is already evident from the parameter name. It adds no details about the default value ('@default'), whether the parameter is required (it is not), or how the clear operation scopes to that list. The parameter semantics are barely enriched.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Clear') and identifies the resource ('all completed tasks from a task list'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like tasks_delete (which removes individual tasks) or tasks_update (which modifies tasks). The action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling context implies it is for bulk-removing completed tasks rather than deleting them individually, the description itself does not state any use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites (e.g., the need for a specific tasklist_id).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states only that the tool creates a contact, but does not mention permissions, default address book behavior, duplicate handling, or whether changes are reversible. With no annotation support, this leaves the agent with significant uncertainty about the operation's side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to the core message, making it efficiently concise for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there are 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient for fully correct invocation. The output schema covers return values, but the description fails to clarify ambiguous field meanings, optional-field handling, or the relationship to batch creation, leaving the overall context incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It lists 'name, email, phone, organization, and title,' but does not map 'name' to the actual given_name and family_name fields, and it omits family_name entirely. This is ambiguous and provides minimal value beyond the raw property names in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Create' with the resource 'contact' and lists key fields (name, email, phone, organization, title), making the primary purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like contacts_update and contacts_delete by the explicit 'new contact' framing, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from contacts_batch_create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you want to create a single new contact. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over contacts_batch_create for multiple contacts, nor any prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools for similar tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 merely states 'Get the photo URL' without detailing return behavior (e.g., whether URL can be null), error conditions, or side effects. It adds little beyond what the tool name already implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words, appropriately sized for a simple getter tool. It earns its place by clearly conveying the primary function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of parameter semantics, behavioral details, and annotations, the description is incomplete even for a simple tool. A user cannot determine how to construct resource_name or what to expect as a response. The presence of an output schema (not shown) might mitigate, but the description itself leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single required parameter resource_name with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description mentions 'for a contact' which gives a vague hint that resource_name identifies the contact, but it does not explain the expected format (e.g., 'people/123') or provide any additional semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the photo URL for a contact' clearly states the action and resource, making the tool's purpose straightforward and distinct from sibling tools that handle other contact operations. It does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives, but no similar photo-related tool exists among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance or alternative tools are mentioned, but the description implies this tool is used when you need a contact's photo URL. The context of the tool name and description provides a basic sense of when to use it, but no explicit when/why or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 ('Remove') but does not disclose whether the operation is irreversible, whether special permissions are required, or what side effects occur. For a delete operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for such a simple operation, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the description is under-specified. It does not mention the output, whether the deletion is permanent, or any side effects. An output schema exists, but the description still needs to provide behavioral context to be complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the roles of file_id and permission_id. The schema only provides titles, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from the tool name and context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a sharing permission from a file'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_share_file (which adds permissions) and drive_list_permissions (which lists permissions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a sharing permission needs to be revoked, but provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites such as ownership or edit access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists responses, implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention that 'all' may be constrained by the max_results parameter or pagination behavior. No side effects or limitations are disclosed, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that immediately states the tool's core function. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, contains no fluff, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits the caveat that 'all' responses may not actually be returned due to max_results, and it provides no context about response ordering or format. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters. While form_id and max_results are somewhat self-explanatory from their names, the description adds no semantic value, and the max_results default (50) and its role in limiting results are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all responses submitted to a Google Form' uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('responses submitted to a Google Form'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like forms_read, which reads the form definition. It is unambiguous and purpose-oriented.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as forms_read for form structure. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, leaving usage context entirely unspecified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Add', which implies mutation, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the sheet is appended at the end), conflict handling for duplicate titles, or required permissions. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool that modifies a document.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the one-line description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks contextual completeness because it does not mention when to use it, any alternative interactions, or what the agent should expect in terms of side effects. With no annotations, the description should have been slightly more detailed to be fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not compensate by explaining the parameters. The schema only lists 'spreadsheet_id' and 'title' with self-explanatory titles; the description adds no further meaning (e.g., that title becomes the new sheet's name or that spreadsheet_id references the parent). This leaves the agent with no added semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Add') on a specific resource ('new sheet/tab') within a 'spreadsheet'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sheets_create (which creates a spreadsheet) and sheets_delete_sheet (which removes a sheet). The purpose is unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing spreadsheet ID) or exclusions (e.g., use sheets_batch_update for adding multiple sheets at once). The lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses that status can be 'needsAction' or 'completed' but does not reveal whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to omitted fields, or any error conditions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness, even though it could have traded some brevity for more semantic depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not enumerate the updatable fields beyond status, nor does it explain the default tasklist_id behavior or how the tool handles partial updates. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the overall context is still insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only clarifies the meaning of 'status'; parameters like task_id, due, notes, title, and tasklist_id are entirely undocumented in the description, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('a task'), and this distinguishes it well from sibling tools like tasks_create or tasks_delete. However, it only mentions status as an updatable field, omitting the full scope of updatable properties (title, notes, due), so it is not maximally clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The verb 'Update' implies this tool is for modifying an existing task, providing an implied use case. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like tasks_move or tasks_clear_completed, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusion cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list instances' without revealing that the event must be recurring, how time_min/time_max filter results, or whether pagination is returned. This is a significant gap for a read operation with multiple filtering parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous content. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing operation, though it could have expanded on usage without violating conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits essential context such as the need for a recurring event's ID, the role of time_min/time_max, and the meaning of max_results. The output schema may define return payloads, but operational context remains missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate. Parameter names like event_id and time_max are intuitive, but the description does not clarify their formats, relationships, or defaults. The event_id requirement and optional time filters remain under-explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('instances of a recurring event'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like calendar_get_events (which lists events generally). It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that event_id must correspond to a recurring event, nor does it contrast with calendar_get_events or calendar_create_event. The description gives no context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state that deletion is permanent, whether it is reversible, what happens on partial failure, or any required permissions. For a destructive batch operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that starts with the action verb and immediately conveys the core functionality. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb+resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one array parameter) and the absence of annotations or output schema details, the description should compensate by explaining parameter semantics and safety aspects. It does not mention batching limits, permanent deletion, or error behavior, leaving the tool underspecified for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for the single required parameter 'resource_names'. The description does not explain what this parameter represents (e.g., contact IDs, emails, resource paths), the expected format, or how to identify contacts. The schema itself only provides the type (array of strings), so the description adds no value for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete'), the resource ('contacts'), and the scope ('multiple ... at once'), which directly distinguishes it from the single-delete sibling 'contacts_delete' and aligns with the batch naming convention.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'at once' implies use when deleting multiple contacts, but it does not explicitly contrast with the single-delete tool, mention limits, or exclude other alternatives. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that contacts can be searched by the given fields, without mentioning pagination, case sensitivity, partial matching, result ordering, or any side effects. This is minimal and offers little transparency beyond the core function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently and earns a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states what is searched and by what fields. However, it lacks details on search behavior (e.g., whether the query is a partial or exact match) and does not mention the optional max_results parameter. Given the absence of annotations and the presence of a sibling list tool, the description feels incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to the 'query' parameter by specifying the acceptable search fields (name, email, phone number). However, it does not address 'max_results' at all, leaving its behavior to be inferred from the schema name and default value. This partial compensation earns a middle score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search contacts by name, email, or phone number.' It specifies the verb ('search'), the resource ('contacts'), and the searchable fields. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like contacts_list, but the name and content make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as contacts_list or drive_search. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. Users are left to infer the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral implications. It mentions appending text but does not describe whether a new paragraph is created, how formatting is handled, if there are size limits, or what the response contains. The mutation is implied but lacks deeper transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized given the simple operation, though brevity comes at the cost of context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not cover edge cases, required permissions, return values, or interaction with document formatting. The tool appears simple, but the lack of behavioral and usage context leaves gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. It mentions 'text' and 'Google Doc' but does not explain that document_id is required or any constraints on the text string. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare field titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (append) and the resource (Google Doc) with a specific location (end). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_insert_text which likely inserts at a specified position, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as docs_insert_text or docs_find_replace. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lacks any mention of where the image is inserted (e.g., at an index or at the end), whether the URL must be publicly accessible, what happens if the URL is invalid, or how the width_pt and height_pt parameters affect the image. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-sentence description is highly concise and front-loaded, containing no filler or redundant information. It states the essential action and resource in a clear, efficient manner, which is appropriate for the tool's apparent simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and several parameters, the description provides no context about insertion behavior, constraints, or error handling. The presence of index, width_pt, and height_pt implies additional functionality that is completely unaddressed. The description is too bare to fully enable correct tool usage without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description itself adds no parameter information beyond what the schema names imply. The optional parameters index, width_pt, and height_pt are not explained, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and behavior. Since the description must compensate for the low schema coverage and fails to do so, the score is minimal.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: inserting an image into a Google Doc from a URL. The verb 'insert', the resource 'Google Doc', and the source 'URL' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like docs_insert_text or docs_insert_table. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the user wants to add an image from a URL to a Google Doc. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, such as using slides_insert_image for slides or docs_insert_text for textual content. The context is evident from the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states the action without covering what happens when parent_id is omitted, required permissions, side effects, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately clear, achieving high conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation, the description minimally covers the action, but given no annotations, no parameter guidance, and no distinction from sibling tools, an agent may lack context on default parent folder, error handling, and usage nuances. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on 'name' or 'parent_id' semantics. Although property names are self-explanatory, no additional context, constraints, or examples are provided, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('folder in Google Drive'), clearly stating the tool's action and distinguishing it from sibling tools like drive_create_file. It fully captures the tool's purpose with no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as drive_create_file or drive_list_folder. It also lacks any prerequisites, default behavior, or contextual instructions for creating folders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is extremely brief. It does not disclose important behaviors such as the default folder_id='root', the pagination via max_results, whether the listing is recursive, or error handling. The description fails to carry the full transparency burden in the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool, the description is minimal but leaves out key invocation details such as parameter defaults, result scope, and behavior limits. With no annotations to fill gaps and no parameter guidance, the agent has insufficient context to reliably select and call this tool among many Drive-related siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters, and the description does not mention folder_id or max_results at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value to help the agent understand their purpose or syntax beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists folder contents with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like drive_search and drive_read_file by focusing on enumerating children of a specified folder.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need folder contents) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of drive_search for broader queries or how to handle large folders, leaving usage context only weakly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'List file revisions'. It does not reveal whether the operation is read-only (though implied), whether revisions include metadata or content, if there are limits, or if behavior differs by file type. It adds little beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical '(version history)' adds useful clarification without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists, so return values are likely covered, but the description is thin for a one-parameter tool. It does not explain what file_id refers to, nor does it provide any context about version history behavior (e.g., ordering, availability, or limitations). The minimal description leaves several practical questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (file_id) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that file_id identifies the file. The name is self-explanatory in context, but the description fails to explicitly link the parameter to the action, so it adds no semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('file revisions (version history)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_read_file (reads file content) and drive_list_folder (lists folders), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the go-to for version history, nor does it explain any prerequisites or exclusions compared to drive_read_file or drive_search. The agent must infer context solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions what formatting can be applied but does not explain that it modifies existing text within a specific range, whether changes are reversible, or what happens with invalid indices. The mutation aspect and range behavior are undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and lists key formatting options efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations, this description is far too brief. It lacks essential details about how start/end indices work, how formatting applies to the specified range, and any interaction with existing text styles. The output schema exists, but the description still leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description only names a few optional formatting parameters (bold, italic, size, color). It does not explain the required start_index/end_index semantics, shape_id selection, or presentation_id context. The description adds partial meaning for formatting parameters but fails to cover all core parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Format') and resource ('text within a shape on a slide'), and explicitly lists formatting attributes (bold, italic, size, color). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like docs_format_text (which targets documents) and slides_add_text (which adds text rather than formatting existing text).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like docs_format_text or slides_add_text. The description implies it is for slide shapes but does not state exclusions or direct users to alternative tools for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the description is consistent with that, but it does not disclose any additional behaviors such as URL validity, required permissions, or error conditions. It is minimally transparent but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, unnecessary words, or repetition. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description. However, the description omits usage context and parameter semantics, making it only partially complete for an agent that needs to decide when and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the parameters. While 'presentation_id' and 'slide_id' are self-explanatory to some degree, the description fails to relate them to the tool's function, nor does it indicate any format or constraints. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('thumbnail image URL for a slide'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough to set it apart from general slide reading or editing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. There is no mention of how it relates to slides_read or other slide-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Delete a contact' implies destructive behavior, but the description does not state whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to associated data (e.g., photo or group memberships), or what permissions are required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It conveys the core action and target in an efficient, readable manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter delete with an output schema, this is minimally adequate. However, the description omits usage context and destruction consequences, which are important given the tool sits among many contact-related operations. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats the phrase 'resource name' without adding meaningful detail. It does not explain the expected format, any constraints, or how the resource name should be obtained, leaving the agent with limited semantic information beyond the parameter name itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'a contact', scoped by 'resource name'. This clearly distinguishes it from contacts_batch_delete (single vs batch) and contacts_update (different operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like contacts_batch_delete or contacts_update, and does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses sorting behavior but omits pagination semantics (max_results), potential data volume, or whether 'all contacts' spans multiple pages. No safety traits are stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence with clear structure, front-loaded verb and resource. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description covers core purpose and sorting, but lacks clarity on the max_results parameter's effect and does not indicate whether the result is paginated or complete. Output schema may fill some gaps, but the description is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage) and the description does not mention the max_results parameter. The agent must infer from the property name alone that it controls result count, with no clarity on default/range behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'contacts' and sorting detail, clearly distinguishing from contacts_search (which implies filtering) and contacts_list_groups (which lists groups).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit alternative guidance, but 'all contacts' implies it is for retrieving the full list rather than searching. There is no mention of when to use contacts_search instead, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or how max_results affects the results. It does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation, though 'list' implies it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values do not need explanation. However, the description is missing parameter semantics and usage context, which are important for correct invocation. It is minimal but not wholly inadequate for a basic list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (max_results) with no description, and the tool description does not mention it. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to clarify the parameter's meaning or how it relates to 'list all.' The name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all contact groups (labels).' It clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like contacts_list (which lists contacts) and contacts_search (which searches contacts). The term 'all' indicates scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description must convey behavioral details, but it only restates the core action. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., creating a visible comment), permission requirements, idempotency, or error conditions, leaving the agent to guess about operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of eight words, efficiently front-loading the action and object. There is no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two required parameters and an output schema, so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks context about required permissions, whether the file must already exist, or how the tool behaves if the comment cannot be added, which limits completeness for an agent operating with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and only provides parameter names ('file_id', 'content'). The description does not explicitly explain these parameters; it only implies that 'a Drive file' maps to file_id and 'a comment' maps to content. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's existing titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a comment to a Drive file'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool drive_list_comments, which handles reading comments rather than adding them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without context about when it is appropriate (e.g., needing edit permissions, or comparing to drive_list_comments for reading).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether indices are zero-based, what happens to other questions, or any permission requirements for this mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, achieving brevity without unnecessary wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, a simple but nuanced operation (indexing and reordering), and no parameter clarifications, the description does not provide enough context for reliable execution. The output schema exists but does not mitigate the lack of behavioral and parameter guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description does not add meaning to the parameters beyond their names. The from_index/to_index semantics are left inferred, which is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without assumptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'move/reorder' and targets the resource 'question in a form', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like forms_add_question and forms_delete_question.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when reordering a question but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like forms_update_question. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list', which implies read-only, but does not mention pagination, required permissions, or any edge-case behavior. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the verb itself.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the core purpose efficiently and is appropriately sized for a tool with two straightforward parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks context on how the tool fits into the workflow. It does not mention that participant_name might come from meet_list_participants or that conference_record_name comes from meet_list_conference_records, which would help an agent use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. While the parameter names (participant_name, conference_record_name) are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify how to obtain these values (e.g., from meet_list_participants) or the expected format, leaving room for misuse.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list), the resource (sessions), and the scope (for a specific participant in a conference). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meet_list_participants and meet_list_conference_records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as meet_list_participants or meet_get_artifacts. There is no mention of prerequisites or workflow context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects such as whether formatting is preserved, whether the action is reversible, or any permission requirements. The statement 'Clear values' is minimal and does not add context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, making it highly concise while still conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (2 params, straightforward action), and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks essential context such as range format and behavioral caveats, which are critical for correct invocation. It is minimally complete but leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for parameters, and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'range' but does not explain the expected format (e.g., 'Sheet1!A1:B2' or 'A1:B2'), and it only alludes to 'Google Sheet' for spreadsheet_id. The description adds little meaning over the parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clear values from a range in a Google Sheet' uses a specific verb ('clear') and resource ('range in a Google Sheet'), making it distinct from sibling tools like sheets_write, sheets_append, and sheets_read. It unambiguously states the tool's core operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., sheets_write, sheets_append, or clearing an entire sheet). It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'read values' and explains range notation; it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns formulas vs. computed values, how errors are handled, authentication needs, or any side effects. The read intent is implied but not explicitly detailed beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: a clear statement of purpose and a concise usage example. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately explains the important range syntax.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description provides minimal context about when to use this tool among the many sheets_* siblings. It covers the essential range syntax but omits any behavioral context such as default range behavior (only in schema) or gaps with similar tools. For a two-parameter read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the 'range' parameter with the A1 notation example, which is the syntactically complex parameter. The 'spreadsheet_id' is left to the name and schema, but it is self-explanatory. This partial compensation merits a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Read values from a Google Sheet') with a specific verb and resource. It adds the A1 notation detail, which helps clarify the range format. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like sheets_get_info or sheets_write, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sheets_get_info or sheets_write. The description provides a usage tip (A1 notation) but lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action and does not disclose behavior such as whether the URL is fetched, how placement works, what happens on failure, or what is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is clear, front-loaded, and contains no fluff, making it easy to parse. However, given the seven-parameter schema, it is arguably too terse to support effective parameterization.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no mention of output behavior, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool confidently. It covers only the core action and leaves coordinate semantics, defaults, and return values unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 7 parameters, and the description does not explain the meaning of x_pt, y_pt, width_pt, or height_pt. The only parameter hint is 'from a URL' implicitly matching image_url, but positions and dimensions remain unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('an image onto a slide') with a source ('from a URL'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as docs_insert_image and slides_insert_video/shape/table.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a use case — adding an image to a slide — but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like docs_insert_image and other slides_insert_* functions exist, yet no exclusions or alternative references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a query ('Query free/busy info') and specifies the return content ('busy time blocks'), implying a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior with edge cases like empty calendars or invalid time ranges.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the output type, making it easy to parse and clearly scoped.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential input context. With four parameters and zero schema descriptions, the agent cannot know how to construct a valid request (e.g., date formats, timezone handling, calendar selection). The description is too sparse for reliable tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not compensate. The phrase 'for calendars' hints at the calendars parameter, but there is no explanation of time_min, time_max, or timezone format. Agents are left to guess the expected input formats and semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('free/busy info for calendars'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also differentiates from sibling tools like calendar_get_events by focusing on availability rather than event details, and the phrase 'Returns busy time blocks' clarifies the output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as calendar_get_events or calendar_list_recurring_instances. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where free/busy information is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers only minimal context: the operation is read-only ("Get events") and mentions RFC3339 for time range inputs. However, it does not describe the output format, pagination behavior, default calendar handling, or any side effects. This is insufficient for transparent expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and then adds key filtering details. There is no redundancy or unnecessary prose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 optional parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not mention that all parameters are optional, what the default calendar is, how max_results behaves, or any output-related details (despite an output schema existing). The context is insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of time_min/time_max (time range) and query (text search), but entirely omits calendar_id and max_results. These two parameters have defaults but their purpose is not clarified, leaving meaningful gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: "Get calendar events." It also mentions filtering by time range (RFC3339) and text search, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_list_calendars or calendar_create_event. The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need calendar events with optional filters) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer. It lacks direct comparisons to alternatives like calendar_freebusy or calendar_list_recurring_instances, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states 'Update a contact'. It does not mention whether updates are partial (only provided fields change), whether missing fields are preserved, or any permissions needed. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides a practical hint for obtaining the resource name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain update semantics, the effect of omitting fields, or any prerequisites beyond the resource name. The output schema exists but does not substitute for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only elaborates on resource_name, missing explanations for the other six parameters (email, phone, title, etc.). The description does not clarify that only specified fields are updated, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update a contact' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like contacts_create and contacts_delete. It also provides a clear source for the required resource_name parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'Resource name from contacts_search/contacts_list', indicating the user should first search/list to obtain the identifier. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'apply formatting' without explaining side effects, such as how the start/end indices affect entire paragraphs, what happens to existing list formatting, or potential errors. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted text or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter mutation tool. It does not explain how indices map to paragraphs, what bullet_type options exist beyond the default, or any constraints. The tool needs more context to be used correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it does not mention document_id, start_index, end_index, or bullet_type. The description provides zero assistance in understanding what each parameter controls.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: applying bullet or numbered list formatting to paragraphs in a Google Doc. The verb 'apply' and the specific resource 'paragraphs in a Google Doc' distinguish it from sibling tools like docs_format_text or docs_insert_text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying the tool is for bullet/numbered list formatting on paragraphs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions compared to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Create a Gmail draft' makes the mutating nature clear, and 'All fields are optional' hints that incomplete drafts are acceptable. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., the draft appearing in Gmail), permissions, or success/error behavior, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second clarifies optionality for work-in-progress drafts.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks context about the drafting workflow (e.g., that drafts can later be sent via gmail_send_draft) and does not explicitly state that the email will not be sent. For an agent navigating many Gmail siblings, this could lead to misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only states 'All fields are optional,' providing no field-level meaning, format expectations (e.g., CSV recipients), or distinction between body and html. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a Gmail draft' with a specific verb and resource. It is clear that this tool creates a draft rather than sending an email, which differentiates it from siblings like gmail_send and gmail_send_draft, though it does not explicitly mention those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'All fields are optional for work-in-progress drafts' implies the tool is for drafting emails that may be incomplete. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_send or gmail_send_draft, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Download' and that data is returned as base64, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects on the message, or potential limitations like size constraints. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that immediately states the action and result. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, but with no annotations and no parameter explanations, the description leaves gaps: no mention of how to obtain the required IDs, no error handling expectations, and no relationship to other Gmail tools. It is incomplete as a standalone definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain the purpose or format of message_id and attachment_id, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names. This is insufficient for a low-coverage schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Download') with a clear resource ('a Gmail attachment') and states the output format (base64 data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_read_message and gmail_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The action is clearly implied by the description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining attachment_id), and no exclusions. It is acceptable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects and requirements. It states supported features (HTML, CC/BCC, threading) but does not clarify the implications of sending (e.g., immediate delivery, need for authentication, irreversibility). The lack of detail about how threading works (via thread_id/in_reply_to) leaves important behavioral aspects undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides relevant information about features, making it very efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal to be fully actionable. It doesn't provide context on prerequisites, formatting of recipients, or how threading parameters are used. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed, but parameter usage and edge cases are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It maps to some parameters (HTML, cc/bcc, threading) but fails to explain the format of 'to', 'subject', 'body', or how 'thread_id' and 'in_reply_to' relate to the threading feature. This is insufficient for 8 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Send an email', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gmail_draft and gmail_send_draft by specifically stating it sends an email, and the added features (HTML, CC/BCC, threading) further clarify its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates the tool's purpose (sending email) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like gmail_draft or gmail_send_draft. The usage is implied by the verb, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool references, making it less helpful for selection among related gmail tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the literal action. It does not disclose that trashing is reversible via gmail_untrash, nor what happens to message labels or pagination. As a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with seven words, front-loaded with the verb and object. No unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with an output schema, the description is minimal but lacks behavioral context such as reversibility or permission requirements. Given no annotations, the description should carry more weight, and it falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (message_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what message_id refers to or how to obtain it, so it adds no value beyond the schema field name. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Move a Gmail message to the trash' with a clear verb and resource. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling gmail_untrash, which performs the reverse operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of when to choose this over gmail_untrash or other modification tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'Add a slide' without explaining side effects, return value, or how the insertion_index affects placement. The list of layouts adds some info but omits behavior around mutation or defaults.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the core action and follows with the layout values, with no redundant or extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but has three parameters, and the description does not clarify the behavior of insertion_index or the required presentation_id. It also omits any details about the returned object (though an output schema exists). The description is too minimal for a tool that involves mutation and has multiple parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains the layout parameter by listing valid values, but it does not explain presentation_id or insertion_index. The agent cannot infer their semantics from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Add a slide' with a specific resource (slides) and lists the available layouts, making the tool's purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slides_insert_shape or slides_add_text by focusing on adding a slide itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to add a slide, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of other slide tools or provide any exclusions. No alternative tools are named, so the usage context is only inferred from the verb 'add' and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'create' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it is idempotent, or what the response contains. It does not describe side effects or security considerations, leaving the agent without essential safety/behavior context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the operation and resource. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description is too sparse. While an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description fails to explain the lone required parameter. This incompleteness forces the agent to infer parameter semantics, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly without additional experimentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no description for the required 'title' parameter. The description likewise does not explain what 'title' is for, nor does it link the tool's purpose to the parameter. The agent is left guessing whether 'title' is the presentation name, a file name, or something else. This is a significant gap for a single-param tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a new Google Slides presentation'. It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slides_add_slide (adds a slide) and slides_read (reads existing), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when a new Google Slides presentation is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear since it is the only creation tool for slides among siblings. Thus it provides clear context without needing further exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Insert' but does not describe side effects, permissions, reversibility, or behavior on failure. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that both add value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the only parameter clarification provided. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not provide enough context for correct invocation. It lacks guidance on parameter relationships, how to obtain the required IDs, or default behaviors for optional positioning parameters. The minimal annotation coverage means the description must do more to be complete, and it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains only video_id as 'the YouTube video ID', adding semantic value beyond the schema. However, with 7 parameters and 0% schema coverage in the description, the other 6 parameters (presentation_id, slide_id, x_pt, y_pt, width_pt, height_pt) receive no contextual explanation, leaving a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Insert a YouTube video onto a slide') with a specific resource and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slides_insert_image and slides_insert_table by specifying 'YouTube video'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for YouTube video insertion, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusion criteria or mention of sibling tools, though the purpose is clear enough to infer basic usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool reads the full text content, which is a safe, read-only behavior. However, it does not describe nuances like formatting preservation, size limits, or authentication requirements, which would be useful context for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no redundant or extraneous content, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose without needing to explain return values. However, the lack of annotations and usage guidance leaves minor context gaps, particularly around when to select this tool over similar read tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single parameter `document_id` with no description, and the tool description offers no additional details about it. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to rely on the parameter name alone. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('Google Doc'), and specifies 'full text content' which defines the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like `drive_read_file`, so it lacks a clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading a Google Doc but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `drive_read_file` or `docs_*` tools. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation but provides no additional behavioral context such as return format, ordering, error behavior, or any side effects. This leaves the agent with minimal insight beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, perfectly front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), but because the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, it is only minimally complete. The agent can infer the primary purpose but is missing potentially important context about what exactly is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The phrase 'by its thread ID' merely restates the parameter name ('thread_id') and schema title ('Thread Id'), adding no new semantic information such as format, validation, or how to obtain a thread ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('all messages in a Gmail thread') and identifies the key identifier ('thread ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gmail_read_message (single message) and gmail_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case: to read all messages in a thread. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use gmail_read_message for a single message'), so guidance on when to choose this tool is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states the action, omitting what happens to the message (e.g., restored to inbox), whether the message must currently be trashed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that communicates the operation without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple, one-parameter tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the lack of parameter semantics and behavioral transparency makes it only minimally adequate. It covers the core action but leaves out peripheral but useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description for the message_id parameter, and the description does not explain what the parameter is or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning or context beyond the schema field name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear resource ('a Gmail message') and location ('from the trash'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like gmail_trash.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the name and description: it's for restoring a trashed message. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' guidance or alternatives mentioned, which is acceptable but not proactive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the conditional creation of a text box; it does not disclose whether text is appended or replaces existing content, permission requirements, error behavior, or other side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. There is no redundant information, and it is easily parsed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks critical behavioral details such as whether text is appended or overwrites existing text, how invalid IDs are handled, and other constraints. The output schema does not cover these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for shape_id by explaining the empty-value behavior, and it implicitly clarifies roles for presentation_id, slide_id, and text. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not fully compensate with detailed parameter explanations, though the names and sentence provide some context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add text to a slide') and the specific resource (slide), and it clarifies the conditional behavior of creating a new text box when shape_id is empty. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like slides_insert_shape or slides_format_text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context: providing a shape_id targets an existing shape, while leaving it empty creates a new text box. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool creates an event and can auto-generate a Google Meet link, which are important side effects. But it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether attendees will be invited, whether permissions are required, or what happens if the calendar is unavailable. This is somewhat typical for a mutation tool, but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two clean sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most critical input formatting and optional feature. No redundant or filler content, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the description is not complete enough. While it covers the required fields and the Meet feature, it leaves many optional parameters to be inferred from their names, which might be insufficient for an AI agent to use the tool correctly without additional context. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return-value documentation, but the parameter coverage gap remains significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning property names and types only. The description adds important semantics for 'start'/'end' (RFC3339 vs all-day format) and 'add_google_meet' (auto-generate link), which is helpful. However, it leaves the other six parameters (summary, location, timezone, attendees, calendar_id, description) entirely unaddressed, so the description insufficiently compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Create a calendar event', which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like calendar_update_event and calendar_delete_event. It also adds meaningful detail about datetime formats and Google Meet generation, making the purpose unmistakably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit input formatting guidance (RFC3339 vs YYYY-MM-DD) and the add_google_meet flag, which helps with usage. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like calendar_quick_add or calendar_update_event, so selection guidance is only implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It does add value by clarifying that partial updates are possible (fields not provided remain unchanged), which is beyond the basic 'update' verb. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a key behavioral note. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It omits important context such as expected date formats, how timezone is used, and what the tool returns. The presence of an output schema helps but does not entirely compensate for the lack of behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining individual parameters. While names like 'start' and 'summary' are self-explanatory, formats, defaults, or constraints (e.g., date format, timezone behavior) are not addressed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('existing calendar event'), distinguishing it from siblings like calendar_create_event or calendar_delete_event. The word 'existing' reinforces that this tool modifies a pre-existing event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Only provided fields are changed' gives a useful behavior hint, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create for new events, delete for removal). Usage is implied rather than directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It omits whether updates are partial or full, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. The mutation is stated, but no safety or effect details are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous information, directly stating purpose and examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials but lacks key behavioral context such as update semantics (partial vs. full), which would help the agent invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'make it a quiz' and 'change description', hinting at is_quiz and description, but does not clarify the role of form_id or the effects of defaults (null, empty string). Since schema coverage is 0%, this partial explanation is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('form settings'), with concrete examples ('make it a quiz, change description') that map to available parameters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like forms_add_question or forms_update_question by focusing on settings rather than questions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for updating form-level settings but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as forms_update_question or forms_add_question. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only (although 'List' implies it), nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or response format. The description is too sparse to fully inform the agent of behavioral expectations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any waste. It is appropriately minimal for such a simple tool, every word is necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema and no parameters, the description is mildly sufficient. However, it lacks any discussion of use cases, limitations, or relationship to sibling list tools, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. The baseline score of 4 applies because there are no parameter details to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'all Gmail filters', distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_list_labels. It is unambiguous and directly states the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., gmail_list_labels or gmail_search). It does not mention any prerequisites or context in which listing filters is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior of appending after existing data, but omits details such as how 'range' affects the append location or any side effects, making it minimally transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of eight words, front-loading the core action and placement. Every word is purposeful, with no unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three required parameters and no annotations, the description is too terse. It does not explain the role of 'range' in an append operation or how 'values' should be structured, though the output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (spreadsheet_id, range, values). It adds no meaning about their purpose or structure, leaving an agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action ('Append rows') and resource ('Google Sheet'), and clarifies placement ('after existing data'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_write, which implies writing to a specific range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for adding rows to the end of existing data, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., sheets_write) or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Read' which implies a non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose what the output looks like, any limitations (e.g., formatting or size constraints), or authentication/permission needs. Minimal transparency beyond the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no repetition or extra verbiage. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the sparse description, the tool is simple (one parameter, read-only semantics), and an output schema exists to handle return-value details. The description explicitly covers what is read (metadata and text content) and the scope (all slides), making it largely complete for a basic read operation. However, it lacks any mention of when to use it compared to similar tools, which prevents a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanation. It does not mention presentation_id at all, leaving its format and source ambiguous. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning or guidance for obtaining or providing the ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (Read) and resource (presentation), and clearly scopes the action to 'metadata and text content from all slides.' This distinguishes it from other slide tools (like slides_add_slide or slides_get_thumbnail) and from other read tools (docs_read, sheets_read).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by naming the read operation on a presentation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent can infer it should be used for reading presentation content, but no explicit guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect of 'parent' and 'previous' parameters but does not mention side effects (e.g., what happens to subtasks when a parent is changed), permissions, or edge cases. The minimal behavioral detail is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently explains the two non-obvious parameters. There is zero wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists, the description remains thin for a hierarchical reorder operation. It does not discuss moving tasks between tasklists, handling subtask orphans, or prerequisites. The core behavior is covered, but edge cases and integration with other task tools are omitted, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to 'parent' (make it a subtask) and 'previous' (position after another task), which are not self-explanatory. However, it does not explain 'tasklist_id' or the required 'task_id', though 'task_id' is obvious from the name. This partial coverage justifies a middle score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with 'Move/reorder a task' and explains the key parameters for making a task a subtask or positioning it after another. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_update, which handles property updates rather than reordering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when needing to reorder or change hierarchy), but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as tasks_update or tasks_list. It lacks explicit 'use when' or 'use instead of' guidance, so usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'Read' which implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not specify what 'full content' includes (e.g., attachments, headers) or any potential side effects like marking as read. This leaves ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks important context about the scope of 'full content' (e.g., whether attachments are included), which is relevant given sibling tools like gmail_get_attachment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter message_id is mentioned as 'by its ID', but the description does not provide details on ID format, how to obtain it, or validate it. With 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'full content of a Gmail message by its ID', clearly indicating a read operation on a specific message. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like gmail_read_thread and gmail_search by focusing on full content of a single message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a message ID is available and full content is needed, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclude other tools. No guidance on when to prefer this over gmail_search or gmail_read_thread.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, return values, or behavior on failure. Only provides parameter format hints, not behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no wasted words. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to explain tasklist_id (which has a default), notes, or usage scenarios like creating in a specific list. The output schema exists, but the description does not adequately compensate for the low schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for two parameters: parent (for subtasks) and due (RFC3339 format). With 0% schema description coverage, it partially compensates, but leaves tasklist_id, notes, and title semantics unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a new task' with a clear action verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tasks_list, tasks_update, and tasks_delete. The mention of setting parent for subtasks further clarifies its scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating tasks, with an explicit note about setting parent for subtasks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the action and expected dict keys, omitting permission requirements, partial failure behavior, idempotency, or any side effects beyond creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a batch mutation tool with no annotations, the description is adequate for basic usage but lacks guidance on validation, error handling, or batch semantics. The output schema covers return values, so that omission is acceptable, but the missing operational context prevents a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema is minimal (array of objects with additionalProperties allowed), and description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by listing the expected fields (givenName, familyName, email, phone, organization, title), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify required fields or format constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Create multiple contacts at once') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool contacts_create by emphasizing batch operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Create multiple contacts at once' implies use when batching is desired, but it does not explicitly contrast with contacts_create or mention when not to use it. No alternative tool is referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it reads text content and supports specific file types (exported Docs/Sheets/Slides or raw text files), providing some behavioral context. However, it does not mention error behavior for unsupported files, permission requirements, or whether it is a read-only operation (though 'read' implies it).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical clarification. It is concise and free of filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and supported file types. It lacks explicit usage guidance for sibling tools, but it is reasonably complete for a simple read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter file_id with no description (0% coverage). The description only refers to 'a Drive file,' which adds little meaning beyond the tool name. It does not explain how to obtain file_id, what format it should be in, or whether it is a Google Drive ID or a path.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource 'text content of a Drive file' and lists supported file types (Google Docs/Sheets/Slides exported, raw text files). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_read, sheets_read, and drive_export, which focus on specific file types or formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like docs_read or sheets_read, nor when not to use it. The parenthetical hints at scope but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Write' and provides a data example, but does not mention whether existing values are overwritten, whether the operation is atomic, required permissions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second shows a data example. Highly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects), the description provides the essential information. However, it lacks details on edge cases like range validation, overwrite behavior, or response consequences. With an output schema available, this might be adequate, but it's still minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for the two parameters. The description compensates by giving a concrete example of the 'data' array structure: [{'range': 'A1', 'values': [[...]]}], which clarifies the expected format. The spreadsheet_id parameter is self-explanatory. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Write' and the resource 'multiple ranges in one request', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_write that likely handle single-range writes. The data format example further clarifies the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for batch writing to multiple ranges, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like sheets_write, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is clear but underdeveloped.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only adds the numeric-ID requirement and does not mention that deletion is irreversible, what data is affected, or any permission needs—critical for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word adds value, especially the 'not name' distinction.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple delete operation but lacks important context such as irreversibility, potential errors (e.g., deleting the last sheet), or confirmation steps. Given the absence of annotations, more safety-related detail would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies sheet_id by specifying it's numeric and not a name. The spreadsheet_id parameter remains unexplained beyond its title, leaving some ambiguity about what value is expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('sheet/tab'), and clarifies the key constraint ('by numeric sheet ID, not name'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sheets_add_sheet and sheets_clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this to delete a sheet/tab, and the 'not name' warning tells the agent what identifier to use. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, error cases, or how row/column counts are scoped (per sheet or overall). The added value is the list of metadata fields, which provides some transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's core purpose and key returns without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it appropriately sized for a simple metadata getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete. It lists the main metadata fields, and an output schema exists (though not shown) which likely covers the full return structure. It could mention explicit read-only behavior or clarify row/column counts per tab, but these are minor gaps for such a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the format or expected value of spreadsheet_id beyond the parameter name. The name itself is descriptive, but no additional context is provided, such as whether an ID or URL is accepted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('spreadsheet metadata'), listing exact returned fields ('title, sheets/tabs, row and column counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_read, which fetch cell data rather than metadata.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when metadata is needed), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of 'use this before reading/writing' or comparison with sheets_read or sheets_write, so guidance is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description's only behavioral insight is that it 'gets' details, suggesting a read operation. It does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Nothing beyond the purpose is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and an optional illustrative example. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, one required parameter, and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the invocation. It lacks explicit usage context (like prerequisites), but the example and purpose are sufficient for a basic get operation. The main gap is the lack of behavioral transparency, already penalized.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only a parameter name with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by giving a concrete example ('spaces/abc-defg-hij'), clarifying the expected format. This adds meaningful semantic info but does not describe other possible formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details') and the target resource ('Google Meet meeting space') with an explicit example of the resource name format. This distinguishes it from sibling meet tools like meet_create_space or meet_get_artifacts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for fetching a space when the resource name is known, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like meet_get_artifacts or meet_list_conference_records, nor does it explain where to obtain the resource name. The 'by its resource name' clause gives context but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state the core action (create) and input format (natural language), but it does not mention any potential side effects, permission requirements, error handling, or confirmation behavior. The example provides some context but not sufficient depth for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. The inline example is highly illustrative without extra fluff. Every word earns its place, making it an excellent model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, one required), the description covers the essential context: what it does and how to phrase input. The presence of an output schema means return values are handled elsewhere. It lacks a note about the optional calendar_id and the structured alternative, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'text' parameter well with a realistic example, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Text' title. However, it does not mention 'calendar_id' at all, leaving that parameter's purpose and optionality unclear beyond the schema's default value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create an event') and resource ('event'), and adds the critical qualifier 'from natural language' with an example ('Lunch with John tomorrow at noon'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling calendar_create_event, which presumably requires structured fields, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the use case through the natural language input example, making it clear that this tool is for free-form event creation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for structured, programmatic creation) or name alternatives like calendar_create_event, so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the creation action and optional content, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or behavior beyond the basic creation. For a simple create, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema exists. The description is sufficient for a create operation and does not need to explain return values. It lacks some deeper context but is complete enough for this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to body_text as 'optional initial text content', but title is left undefined. Since title is self-explanatory, the description provides moderate value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'new Google Doc' and adds the detail of optional initial text content, making it clear and distinct from siblings that modify existing docs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly implies the tool is for creating new Google Docs, which is explicit enough for the intended use. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the highest rating.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides useful context ('Index 1 = beginning') but does not state out-of-bounds behavior, whether text is inserted before or after the index, or any authentication/permutation requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, with the key information front-loaded. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the core usage and index semantics, but could mention edge cases (e.g., valid index range) or relationship to sibling tools. Overall adequate for a straightforward insert operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'index' parameter ('Index 1 = beginning') but does not explain 'text' or 'document_id' (though those are self-evident from context). It also does not specify whether the index refers to character or byte offset.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('Google Doc') with a clear scope ('at a specific position'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like docs_append_text by emphasizing positional insertion and clarifying index semantics ('Index 1 = beginning').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inserting at a specific position, which differentiates it from append tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'Use docs_append_text to add text at the end.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that the tool uses Drive query syntax, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior or result limits beyond the default value. The added query syntax context earns a middle score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the critical query syntax detail. No wasted words or redundant information. The description is extremely concise and all content is purposeful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple two-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context. It explains the query syntax and gives examples. It could optionally mention that max_results caps the number of results, but the tool's behavior is largely understandable from the schema and description combination. The completeness is strong but not perfect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'query' parameter with concrete examples, which adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema field. 'max_results' is not mentioned, but its name and default value provide some clarity. The description adds strong value for the central parameter without fully covering the second.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function ('Search Google Drive files') with a specific verb and resource, and the query syntax examples ('name contains "report"') distinguish it from sibling tools like drive_read_file or drive_list_folder. The purpose is unambiguous and non-tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (for query-based search) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as drive_list_folder for listing files in a folder. The query syntax examples provide some usage context, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance or reference to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (delete) and the index-based addressing, which is essential. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as irreversibility or the shifting of subsequent question indices, leaving a gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Delete', directly states the resource and the addressing method, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete tool with an output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly: it identifies the target (form_id) and the 0-based index (item_index). It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema. It could mention index shifting, but that is not required for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It specifically clarifies that item_index is a 0-based index, which is crucial and not obvious from the schema's bare 'Item Index' title. form_id is self-evident from its name, so no further explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Delete), the target resource (a question from a form), and the addressing method (0-based index). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forms_add_question, forms_update_question, and forms_move_question.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool to remove a question from a form. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. It provides no guidance on preferring this over forms_update_question or forms_move_question for similar operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details (Gmail query syntax, empty-query behavior) beyond a generic purpose, but it omits other traits like result ordering, pagination, or explicit read-only confirmation, although 'search' strongly implies a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by practical examples and an edge case. Every sentence adds value with no repetition of the tool name or schema details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to construct queries, and default behavior. An output schema exists to define return values. However, max_results semantics and potential pagination/ordering are not addressed, and the absence of annotations leaves safety unmentioned, though the read-only nature is implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The query parameter is thoroughly explained with syntax examples and empty-query behavior. The max_results parameter is not mentioned in the description at all; only the schema provides its type and default, leaving a gap since schema description coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search Gmail messages', which is a specific verb and resource. The Gmail query syntax examples further differentiate it from sibling tools like gmail_read_message or gmail_read_thread, establishing its purpose as search/filter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clear usage context is provided via concrete query examples (is:unread, from:, subject:, has:attachment, after:) and the note about empty queries returning recent messages. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like gmail_read_message, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return value (URI and code), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it omits any mention of side effects (e.g., resource persistence), permissions, or rate limits. The behavior is adequately described for a simple create operation, but not enriched with additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and the return value. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or unnecessary detail. It is exemplary for its brevity and clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what it does and what it returns. The only minor gap is that it does not mention how this creation relates to other meet tools (e.g., that the space can later be accessed by meet_get_space), but this is not essential for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly does not attempt to add parameter information where none exists.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and a clear resource ('a new Google Meet meeting space'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like meet_get_space (which retrieves spaces) and meet_list_conference_records (which lists sessions). It also states a concrete return value (URI and code), making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—'Create a new...' clearly indicates this tool is for creating a space—but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or caveats. There are no sibling comparisons or context on prerequisites. The usage is inferred rather than clearly spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the optional sheet_names behavior (creating custom tabs) but does not mention side effects like file creation in Drive, required write permissions, or any constraints. It adds some value beyond the raw action but lacks thorough behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action ('Create a new Google Spreadsheet') and includes the optional modifier. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, two parameters, and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description covers the core action and parameter semantics adequately. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. Minor gaps like permissions are not critical for a straightforward create tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly ties 'title' to the spreadsheet name and explains that 'sheet_names' are optional custom sheet/tab names, adding meaning beyond the bare parameter titles. This is sufficient for the simple two-parameter schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new Google Spreadsheet, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Google Spreadsheet'). It also mentions optional custom sheet/tab names, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sheets_add_sheet which operate on existing spreadsheets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you need a new spreadsheet), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like sheets_add_sheet or docs_create. No when-to-use or exclusionary guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List all' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, and 'all' discloses the scope. While it doesn't mention pagination or edge cases, for a simple no-parameter list tool the behavior is transparent enough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that immediately states the action and resource. No wasted words, front-loaded, and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the clarity of the description, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly. The description fully covers what the tool does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed. The baseline score of 4 applies for a tool with no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all Google Tasks task lists' uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('Google Tasks task lists'), and specifies scope ('all'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_list (which lists tasks within a list) and tasks_create_tasklist (which creates a list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention that tasks_list is for tasks within a list, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites. There is no explicit context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors like removing INBOX archives a message and adding STARRED stars it, providing concrete side effects. However, it does not mention persistence, permission requirements, or response details, though 'modify' implies a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses concise, meaningful examples. Every word earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately simple, and an output schema exists (signaled by context), so return values do not need explanation. The description covers main use cases and distinguishes itself from sibling tools. It could be more complete by mentioning that multiple labels can be added/removed simultaneously or that message_id is required, but the provided examples give sufficient coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It provides example values (INBOX, UNREAD, STARRED) that map to add_labels and remove_labels, but it does not explicitly describe parameters by name or explain the array semantics fully. The required message_id is not referenced in the description at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Modify labels on a message' with a specific verb (modify) and resource (message), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_create_label or gmail_delete_label. The examples (archive, mark read, star) further clarify the exact actions performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use to archive, mark read, star, etc.', providing clear contexts for when to apply the tool. It lacks explicit alternatives or 'when not to use' guidance, but the examples serve as a strong usage guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('List') and gives an example resource format, but does not elaborate on edge cases, permissions, or return behavior beyond the basic listing. It is not misleading, but lacking depth. With annotations absent, a simple 'List' statement is adequate for a low-complexity tool, but more context like pagination or ordering would improve it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and immediately includes an example. There is no filler or redundant information. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema is present. The description covers the purpose and the parameter format, which is sufficient. It could mention that it returns both participants and sessions separately, but the output schema likely handles that. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides only the parameter name and type (string). The description compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by providing the exact expected format: 'e.g. conferenceRecords/abc-defg-hij'. This is valuable additional meaning that helps the agent construct the correct argument. It does not fully explain all edge cases, but the example is a strong hint.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource: 'participants and their sessions for a conference record'. It also gives an example of the conference record name, which clearly defines the scope. This distinguishes it from the similar sibling tool 'meet_list_participant_sessions' by emphasizing both participants and sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
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: 'for a conference record', with an example. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'meet_list_participant_sessions' or mention any exclusions. It gives enough context to understand the intended use case without explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It adds the useful scope 'all calendars the user has access to,' implying inclusion of shared calendars. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or any edge cases, so it's adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what will be returned (all accessible calendars) without needing to describe return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. Baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('calendars') with a clear scope ('all calendars the user has access to'). This distinguishes it from sibling calendar tools focused on events, freebusy, or other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the function but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives or when-not to use. The context is clear: use when enumeration of accessible calendars is needed, and sibling tools like calendar_get_events handle events, but this is not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects and specifies exactly what is read. It does not mention auth or response inclusion, but the read-only nature is self-evident and an output schema is available.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It earns its place by clearly listing the object parts being read.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers that, and it adequately distinguishes from response-related sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, form_id, with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter, but 'form_id' is self-explanatory from the tool name and schema title. The description adds no extra semantic detail, though the parameter is minimal and obvious.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'form' and details the scope via 'structure, questions, and settings'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like forms_list_responses or forms_update_settings, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need a form's structure, questions, or settings. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over mutation-focused siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. Although it doesn't mention what happens if no vacation is set, the output schema likely covers that. The description is transparent about the core behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundancy, earning every word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no parameters and an output schema, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and pairs naturally with the sibling gmail_set_vacation. No additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaningful detail. The description adds context by specifying exactly what is retrieved ('current settings'). Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not detract from that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('current Gmail vacation/auto-reply settings'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'gmail_set_vacation' by being the read counterpart. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool to retrieve existing vacation settings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention that gmail_set_vacation should be used for modifications. The guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral transparency by explicitly stating that system labels are included ('system and user-created'), which clarifies the scope beyond a generic 'list labels' command. However, it does not mention return format or pagination, but these are likely covered by the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, terse sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the full scope (all labels, including system-created), which is the primary contextual information an agent needs. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, so no further description is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details and instead focuses on the output behavior, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (Gmail labels) with the specific scope of 'all' labels, including both system and user-created. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, delete, or modify labels, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: whenever you need a complete enumeration of Gmail labels. It provides clear context by specifying that both system and user labels are included, but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives. Given that there is no alternative listing tool in siblings, the implicit guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![google-workspace-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shanebrady77/google-workspace-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shanebrady77/google-workspace-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![google-workspace-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shanebrady77/google-workspace-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/shanebrady77/google-workspace-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shanebrady77/google-workspace-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server