Google Workspace MCP Server - Control Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Chat, Forms & Drive
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.24.0
- Disambiguation3/5
While tools are mostly grouped by service (Gmail, Drive, Docs), there is significant overlap within services. For example, get_drive_file_content, get_drive_file_download_url, and get_doc_content all retrieve file content in slightly different ways; similarly, manage_drive_access, set_drive_file_permissions, and share_drive_file overlap in permission management. This can confuse agents about which tool to use.
Naming Consistency4/5Tool names predominantly follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, search_, send_), which is consistent across services. A few exceptions like debug_docs_runtime_info, inspect_doc_structure, and start_google_auth deviate from this pattern, but they are minor and still readable.
Tool Count2/5With 122 tools covering multiple Workspace services, the count is extremely high for an MCP server. While it aims to be a comprehensive Workspace integration, the sheer number makes the tool surface unwieldy and harder for agents to navigate. Typically, a server with this breadth would be split into smaller service-specific servers.
Completeness4/5The server provides extensive coverage across Gmail, Drive, Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Chat, Forms, Slides, Tasks, Contacts, Apps Script, and Custom Search. It includes CRUD operations, search, batch processing, and comments. Minor gaps exist (e.g., Gmail vacation responder, Calendar sharing), but overall the surface is very complete for the stated scope.
Average 3.8/5 across 100 of 122 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 137 of 175 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 217 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
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
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish the safety profile, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what exactly is returned, potential errors, or authorization requirements beyond what the schema states. The description is neutral but does not enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to provide necessary context or details, making it inadequate for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of rich annotations, a fully described schema, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any contextual details about what 'form' refers to or how it fits with related tools, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both form_id and user_google_email having descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-related information, but since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a form.' simply restates the tool name without adding any specific detail about what the form retrieval entails. It lacks information on what a 'form' is in this context (e.g., Google Form structure, settings) and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_form_response, making it nearly tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 or how it compares to alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without information about appropriate usage 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?
The description discloses only the basic action. It does not explain that running a function may execute arbitrary code with side effects, act as the user (based on user_google_email), or affect user data. Annotations already signal destructive and not read-only, but the description fails to add useful context beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the primary action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing important behavioral and usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (running arbitrary script functions, potential side effects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain what happens after execution, how errors are returned, or the implications of running code as the user. This is insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully describes all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter relationships, like how dev_mode changes execution target or how parameters are passed. It simply restates the action without enriching schema semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb 'executes' and resource 'function in a deployed script', but the qualifier 'deployed' is inaccurate because the tool can also run latest code via dev_mode (as noted in the schema). This partial misstatement obscures the full scope, so it's not a fully reliable 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as needing a deployment or auth, and no reference to sibling tools that manage script projects or deployments.
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?
The description does not add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey. It mentions the dual behavior (create vs duplicate) but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or details about duplication (e.g., whether formatting is copied). The annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, but the description fails to elaborate on important behavioral nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is cluttered with an inline Python-style signature that disrupts readability. The action is front-loaded, but the parameter list is not well-integrated. It lacks clear structure and could be improved by separating the high-level behavior from parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain how to use the parameters in practice, what happens when creating versus duplicating, or what the expected outcome is beyond the basic operation. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and parameter context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 the lack of parameter documentation. It only lists parameter names and types inline (e.g., 'user_google_email: str'), without explaining their meaning or relationships. For instance, the roles of 'sheet_name' and 'source_sheet_name' are not explicitly defined, leaving the agent to infer their purposes from the tool description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Creates a new sheet or duplicates an existing sheet.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_spreadsheet (which creates a new spreadsheet) by focusing on sheets within an existing spreadsheet.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely functional and lacks any contextual direction for an agent deciding between this and similar 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic retrieval action. It does not mention filtering, ordering, pagination, or any limits, nor does it contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the verb and object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters and a sibling search_messages, this description is too sparse to support selection and correct invocation. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the description fails to explain filtering capabilities, pagination defaults, or how this differs from related message retrieval tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (just message_filter has a description), yet the tool description adds no explanation for user_google_email, space_id, order_by, or page_size. The phrase 'from a Google Chat space' weakly maps to space_id but is not enough to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and names a concrete resource ('Google Chat space'), making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_messages' or 'search_drive_files', so it falls short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 search_messages. The description is a single statement with no context, exclusions, or alternative 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?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'apply batch updates.' It does not disclose effects, required permissions, or any implications of the destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no filler or repetition, making it efficient and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a complex tool with a free-form 'requests' array, yet the description provides no context on what constitutes a valid batch update request or how to construct one. The output schema exists, but the description still needs to explain the input domain sufficiently, which it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. The 'requests' parameter is described generically as 'List of update requests to apply', but no detail is given about valid request types or structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool applies batch updates to a Google Slides presentation, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_presentation or create_presentation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from potential single-update alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where other tools (e.g., batch_update_doc, import_to_google_slides) would be more 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?
The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. It does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, or details about what the created spreadsheet entails. Annotations indicate a write operation, which the description merely confirms.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is highly redundant with the tool name and title. It is structurally fine but lacks informative content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation, the combination of schema, annotations, and output schema covers most needs. However, the description does not clarify how this differs from 'create_sheet' or what happens to the created spreadsheet (e.g., where it is stored).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (creates) and the resource (a new Google Spreadsheet). It is specific but does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_sheet' or 'import_to_google_sheets', so it lacks 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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. Sibling tools like 'create_sheet' and 'import_to_google_sheets' exist, but the description does not mention them or any 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?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, but the description only restates the search functionality without additional disclosures like result scope, pagination behavior, or user-specific data access.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that accurately conveys the core function. It is concise with no wasted words, well-suited for its simple purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the schema and annotations are enriched, the description fails to provide usage context. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related list_contacts tool, leaving a gap in how the agent should choose between them. For a tool with many siblings, more explicit context is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a helpful description. The main description's mention of name, email, and phone number is redundant with the query parameter description, adding no new semantic value. Baseline of 3 applies given the strong schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches contacts by name, email, phone number, or other fields, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_contacts or get_contact, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use search_contacts versus list_contacts or get_contact. There are no alternatives mentioned, exclusions, or contextual triggers for choosing 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the generic fact that it performs a search. It does not address rate limits, result variability, or how the openWorld hint impacts results, so the description contributes no value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that is easy to parse and free of redundant information. It efficiently states the core purpose, but is so terse that it lacks any usage guidance. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool though not maximally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, output schema present), the minimal description is sufficient for basic invocation, especially with the schema handling parameter details. However, it lacks any context about when to choose this tool over other search tools, and the return format is not summarized. The description meets a minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in usability guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with each of the 13 parameters clearly described. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden for parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Performs a search') and identifies the specific API ('Google Custom Search JSON API'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools that target specific services like Gmail or Drive, though the exact scope of results (e.g., web search vs. other content) is not explicitly stated. It is more specific than a vague 'search' but lacks detailed differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 search_gmail_messages or search_drive_files, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide between this and other search 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the scope ('accessible to the user') and the return type (a formatted string). However, it does not explain behavior around pagination, space_type filtering, or what happens if the user email is invalid/unauthorized.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it is acceptable. No unnecessary fluff, though it could be more informative within the same length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the use of page_size or space_type, nor does it provide usage context. Although it is a simple list operation, the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance makes it insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does 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 (user_google_email, page_size, space_type). It fails to explain the meaning or purpose of these inputs, leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap because the description does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does 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 specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('Google Chat spaces'), and clarifies the scope ('accessible to the user'). It also distinguishes between rooms and direct messages, which helps differentiate it from other list_* tools for different Google services.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 prerequisites, typical use cases, or why you might need to list spaces (e.g., before sending a message). There is no mention of excluded scenarios or similar 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations and the output schema imply, such as what 'details' are included or any auth constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it highly concise and appropriately sized for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple read nature, full schema, output schema, and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks explicit context that this retrieves an Apps Script version, which could lead to ambiguity even with sibling names present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (script_id, version_number, user_google_email) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies given full schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Gets' and identifies a resource ('details of a specific version'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_versions (all versions) and create_version (new version). However, it does not explicitly mention that it retrieves a script version, relying on parameter context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 list_versions should be used for retrieving all versions or that this tool is for a single version, 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the obvious 'reads values'; it doesn't mention range clamping, default behaviors, or return format. It provides minimal additional value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with zero waste. It clearly states the core purpose and relies on the schema for details, making it an appropriately sized description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists. However, the description lacks usage context such as when to choose this over other sheet tools, and doesn't mention the required user_google_email or that it's a read-only operation. It's adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions including defaults, clamping behavior, and performance implications (e.g., includeGridData). The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the full burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('reads') and resource ('values from a specific range in a Google Sheet'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_spreadsheet_info or list_spreadsheets, but 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as modify_sheet_values, format_sheet_range, or get_spreadsheet_info. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
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?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or threading behavior. It is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint false) but does not enrich the agent's understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and no usage guidance, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the roles of space_id, user_google_email, or message_text, nor does it mention threading options beyond what the schema provides. Annotations and output schema do not compensate for the lack of contextual explanations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description offers no explanation of parameters. Schema coverage is only 40% (thread_key and thread_name have descriptions), leaving space_id, message_text, and user_google_email undocumented. The description does not compensate for this gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sends a message to a Google Chat space' clearly identifies the specific verb (sends) and resource (Google Chat space). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'send_gmail_message' and Chat read tools such as 'get_messages'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The description only states the basic action.
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?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint: true). The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as side effects of deletion, error handling, or requirements like Google account authentication. It merely restates the create/delete actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but the first sentence 'Manages Gmail filters' is redundant with the tool title and adds no value. The second sentence 'Supports creating and deleting filters' is the substantive part. Could be condensed to a single sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 5 parameters with conditional requirements, the description does not explain the two distinct modes (create vs delete) or the need to provide criteria and filter_action for create, and filter_id for delete. The schema covers this, but the description offers no operational context. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but usage context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further semantic information about what criteria or filter_action objects should contain, relying on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates and deletes Gmail filters, distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like list_gmail_filters. The specific actions (create/delete) 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (use when you need to create/delete filters) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or clearly define when not to use this tool. No reference to list_gmail_filters for read operations or to manage_gmail_label for labels.
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?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds no further behavioral context—no limits, error conditions, or notes on time zone handling. It is purely a return-type statement, adding no value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized and to the point, clearly stating the tool's core function without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and highly descriptive input schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It identifies the action and resource, and the phrase 'set of calendars' implies support for multiple calendars. No critical context appears to be missing for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides comprehensive descriptions for all six parameters, including examples, defaults, and validation details. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('free/busy information') for 'a set of calendars'. It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_events or list_calendars by focusing on free/busy availability rather than event details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 get_events or list_calendars. The description simply states what it returns, leaving usage context implicit and not offering any 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as side effects on existing responses, required permissions, or whether changes are reversible. It does not contradict annotations, but fails to enrich them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. However, it is arguably too terse for a tool with four parameters and no guidance, though conciseness itself is well-executed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema and complete parameter descriptions lowers the burden on the description. Still, the description does not explain when to use this tool instead of batch_update_form, nor the implications of altering publish settings. It is minimally sufficient for a simple tool but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides no additional parameter meaning; the schema's own field descriptions fully document form_id, is_published, user_google_email, and is_accepting_responses.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Updates' and a specific resource 'publish settings' targeting 'a form'. This clearly distinguishes it from broader tools like batch_update_form, making its 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 batch_update_form or get_form. There are no exclusions or context cues to help an agent choose 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?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds no new behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to existing resources, so it carries minimal additional value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and serves its purpose without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it and any context about project creation behavior, such as where projects are stored or the significance of parent_id, making it incomplete for richer decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not introduce any parameter-specific details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a new Apps Script project' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_script_project, get_script_project, and list_script_projects. It leaves no ambiguity about 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 any mention of prerequisites like authentication or choosing between Drive folder or bound container via parent_id. The description only states what it does, not when or how 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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description merely restates the operations without adding context about the consequences of deletion/update, required permissions, irreversibility, or side effects. No additional behavioral disclosure is provided beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and actions, with zero filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but the rich schema (100% param descriptions) and annotations cover operation safety. However, it lacks contextual guidance on selecting this tool vs siblings and doesn't synthesize the action-specific parameters, leaving some completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter purposes and conditional requirements (e.g., deployment_id required for update/delete). The description adds no parameter-level information, meeting the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Manages Apps Script deployments' and enumerates the supported operations ('creating, updating, and deleting deployments'), giving a specific verb and resource. While 'manages' is somewhat generic, the explicit operation list distinguishes it from siblings like list_deployments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied by listing the actions (create/update/delete), so an agent can infer that this tool is for deployment mutation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives (e.g., list_deployments for reading) or 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety profiles. The description lists destructive actions but does not add context such as replace_existing behavior or irreversibility. It aligns with annotations without adding rich behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with an em-colon list of actions. Zero redundant words or filler; it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 9 parameters and 4 distinct actions, but the schema fills in per-action requirements and output schema exists, reducing the burden on the description. The description is minimal but sufficient with structured data. However, a sentence about prerequisites like using inspect_doc_structure for tab IDs would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including action-specific requirements like 'index required for create'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource (document tabs) and lists specific actions: create, rename, delete, populate from Markdown. This distinguishes it from other doc manipulation siblings. However, 'Manage' is a generic verb rather than a specific operation, though the list compensates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. The tool's purpose is implied by the resource, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like inspect_doc_structure or get_doc_as_markdown.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the tool's purpose (write/update/clear). It does not mention that writes overwrite existing data or that clear operations are permanent, which would be valuable given the destructive hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and supported operations. There is no waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple with 6 parameters, 3 required, and an output schema present. The description covers the basic function but lacks additional context such as side effects or typical use cases. Given the annotations and schema coverage, it meets the minimum viable completeness but does not go beyond it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including values, clear_values, and value_input_option. The description's phrase 'can write, update, or clear values' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic information beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Modifies') and resource ('values in a specific range of a Google Sheet'), and further clarifies the supported actions (write, update, clear). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_sheet_values or format_sheet_range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as append_table_rows or format_sheet_range. It does not mention exclusions or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and similar sheet-related 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's mutation profile is known. The description adds that it creates a new form, which is more specific, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or any other behavioral nuance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It could mention that the form is created in the user's Google account, but the required user_google_email parameter implies that without needing explicit explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small note about the title being sourced from the request message, but does not meaningfully expand on the parameters beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new form'), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_form or batch_update_form. However, the phrase 'using the title given in the provided form message in the request' is slightly ambiguous about the source of the title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 any prerequisites or context such as authentication or ownership. The description only states what the tool does, not when or why to choose 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?
Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context such as where the presentation is created, whether it creates a file in Google Drive, or any side effects. With no additional context, it does not go beyond what annotations already provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and target. There is no unnecessary fluff or repetition. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with just two parameters, a complete schema, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention that created presentations are empty or saved to the user's Drive, but the current information combined with schema and annotations provides enough context for this straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes both parameters (title and user_google_email) with 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the specific resource 'a new Google Slides presentation.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_to_google_slides (which imports) and create_drive_file (which creates generic files). 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it differs from related tools like import_to_google_slides. The description is purely definitional and offers 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description confirms the mutation ('Adds') and matches the readOnlyHint=false annotation. It adds some context by specifying the action's target, but does not disclose behavior such as duplicate handling, authentication requirements, or side-effect scope implied by openWorldHint=true.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with three required parameters and an output schema, but the description lacks usage context and fails to explain user_google_email. This is adequate for basic selection but leaves gaps for correct invocation in all scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema documents message_id and emoji_unicode, but user_google_email has no description. The tool description adds no parameter information and does not compensate for the undocumented parameter, leaving a gap in the 67% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Adds') and identifies the exact resource ('emoji reaction to a Google Chat message'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like send_message or search_messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds limited extra behavioral context. It explains the use of Docs API vs Drive API for different file types, which is useful, but does not disclose other important behaviors like output format or potential limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a clear opening statement followed by two bullet points that efficiently summarize the two retrieval paths. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with output schema and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It adequately explains the two file-type scenarios, though it could mention limitations or explicitly guide users to alternatives, which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, mainly mentioning the document_id role, but does not elaborate on parameter formats or usage nuances.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves content from Google Docs or Drive files, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes between native Google Docs and Office files, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_drive_file_content or get_doc_as_markdown.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, nor does it mention exclusions. The handling of different file types is implied by the description, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and mutation aspects. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond a minor clarification that 'page' means 'slide'. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not enriched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the essential purpose. It contains no redundant phrases, making it maximally concise while remaining informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. It does not explain return format or error behavior, but the output schema handles return details, and the operation is a straightforward read. It lacks a bit of contextual guidance but is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description clarifies that 'page' refers to a slide, which slightly aids understanding of page_object_id, but it does not elaborate on details like ID formats or defaults. This aligns with the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Get') and resource ('details about a specific page (slide) in a presentation'). It conveys the tool's specific function without ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_presentation or get_page_thumbnail, 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with other getters in the sibling list. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and nature.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., required permissions, return format, or error conditions). Since annotations do the heavy lifting, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of this read-only tool, the presence of rich annotations, complete schema descriptions, and an output schema, the one-sentence description is largely sufficient. It could be improved by clarifying that 'content' refers to source code within an Apps Script project, but overall it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a basic description. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'content of a specific file within a project,' which clearly outlines the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_script_project or update_script_content, so it is clear but not fully distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. With many sibling tools for script-related operations, some usage context would be helpful, but it is entirely absent.
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?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as how insertion affects existing content, positional indexing behavior, or any side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but fails to enrich them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately states the action, target, and examples, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a fully described schema, annotations, and an output schema, the one-sentence description is largely sufficient. However, the tool has 8 parameters with conditional dependencies, and while the schema covers these, a bit more contextual guidance (e.g., 'required parameters depend on element_type') would help. Still, the structured data compensates well.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, describing each parameter including conditional requirements (e.g., rows/columns for table, list_type for list). The description only names example element types and does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Inserts') and resource ('structural elements like tables, lists, or page breaks into a Google Doc'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like insert_doc_image (images) and modify_doc_text (text). It precisely communicates the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as batch_update_doc, create_table_with_data, or insert_doc_image. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more 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?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the scope constraint 'for the authenticated user,' which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or what fields are returned, so it provides limited additional behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the key action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the strong annotations, complete parameter descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for a straightforward read-only list. It clearly states the resource and user scope, though it lacks alternative-tool guidance, which is covered under usage guidelines rather than completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including defaults and token semantics. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, resulting in the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List contacts for the authenticated user.' This clearly conveys the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_contacts or get_contact, 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 search_contacts or get_contact. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit exclusions or recommendations.
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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is known to be a mutating/destructive operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the raw actions—e.g., it doesn't disclose that deleting a label may remove it from all messages, that updates could affect visibility settings, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description should add such context but doesn't.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the resource (Gmail labels) and lists the three actions cleanly. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 3 actions, output schema present), the description is minimal but sufficient. The schema and output schema cover parameter details and return format, while annotations cover safety. The description only needs to convey the high-level CRUD nature, which it does. It could mention per-action requirements, but those are in the schema, so a score of 4 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (name, action, label_id, user_google_email, label_list_visibility, message_list_visibility) already documented. The description adds no semantic value for parameters, only listing the actions. Since schema covers everything, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Manages Gmail labels: create, update, or delete labels.' This distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like list_gmail_labels and modify_gmail_message_labels, which operate on label assignments rather than label definitions. The verb 'manages' is generic, but the enumerated actions make the purpose explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating, updating, or deleting Gmail labels, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_gmail_labels for reading or modify_gmail_message_labels for altering message-label associations. It gives no exclusions or alternative references, 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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description merely echoes this by listing 'delete' and 'clear completed tasks' without adding contextual details such as permanence of deletion, impact on contained tasks, or permission requirements. It does not contradict the annotations, but it fails to disclose behavior beyond what the schema and annotations already convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the specific operations. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters and a straightforward CRUD-like behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a complete output schema, full parameter descriptions, and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is largely sufficient. It captures the high-level operations and the specific 'clear completed tasks' nuance. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a note about the irreversibility of delete or clear actions, though this is partially covered by the destructiveHint annotation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already well-documented (e.g., title required for create/update, task_list_id for update/delete/clear_completed). The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond restating the allowed actions, which are also listed in the action parameter's description. Thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Manage task lists: create, update, delete, or clear completed tasks.' It identifies the resource (task lists) and enumerates the supported operations, distinguishing it from siblings like manage_task (which handles individual tasks) and list_task_lists (which is read-only). However, the verb 'Manage' is somewhat generic and does not add specificity beyond the enumerated actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for task list management but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_task for individual tasks or list_task_lists for retrieval. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, so the usage context is only inferred from the resource type and sibling names.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns a formatted list and scopes to a specific folder, providing some context beyond annotations, but doesn't discuss pagination, error handling, or that it only returns Google Docs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no fluff. The return type is noted compactly without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with safety annotations and a default-everything schema, the description covers the core purpose and return shape. It lacks parameter semantics and usage contrast, but these are scored separately; overall it's adequately complete for its low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does 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 three parameters. The phrase 'specific Drive folder' hints at folder_id but provides no detail on defaults, required user_google_email, or page_size, leaving the agent without critical parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Lists' with resource 'Google Docs' and scoping phrase 'within a specific Drive folder', clearly distinguishing it from related tools like list_drive_items and search_drive_files. The title and description align perfectly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for listing docs in a folder but doesn't mention exclusions or alternative tools such as search_drive_files, leaving the agent to infer context.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior or return format, but these are inferable from the schema and output schema. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently states the core function without unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, rich schema (100% parameter coverage), output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the one-sentence description is adequate. It does not need to explain return values (output schema covers that) or pagination (schema covers that). The description is complete for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only states the general purpose without elaborating on parameter usage or syntax.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 (a form's responses), making the purpose explicit. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_form_response, which likely retrieves a single response, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation. Verb+resource+scope is clear, but the scope is generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 get_form_response, and does not mention pagination or when to use page_token. It simply states the function without any contextual usage hints or 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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat these. It adds context by specifying the types of destructive operations (insert/delete rows/columns), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential data shifts or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a colon-separated list, front-loading the key resource ('sheet-level dimension properties'). It is efficient and covers all major operations without redundancy, though the list format is a bit transactional.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 20 parameters, a high-level summary is appropriate. The schema and annotations provide detailed parameter definitions and safety profile. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description is complete enough for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and choose it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented with examples and defaults. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema fully compensates. This meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it manages sheet-level dimension properties and enumerates specific operations (resize, auto-resize, freeze, hide/unhide, insert/delete). While 'manages' is not as sharp as a direct verb like 'resize,' the list of actions removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle values or formatting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for dimension-related changes but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like modify_sheet_values or format_sheet_range. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, though the scope is reasonably clear from the listed 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the 'secondary' scope, which offers some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or error conditions, so the added value is modest.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence conveying the essential purpose. There is no fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with a full input schema and an output schema, the description is adequate. It clarifies the calendar type ('secondary'), which is key contextual information. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; every parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Creates') and the resource ('a new secondary Google Calendar'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_calendars or manage_event by specifying 'secondary', 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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, exclusions, or alternative tools. The context is completely absent beyond the basic action.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds the shared drive support context, which is a useful behavioral nuance not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose other potential traits such as permission requirements, error behavior, or whether the operation is reversible, so it offers limited additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and object. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple create operation, the schema (which documents all parameters, including the parent_folder_id default and shared drive usage), and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It adds the key contextual detail of shared drive support. A slight gap is the lack of explicit mention of default behavior in My Drive, but that is covered by the parent_folder_id default, so a 4 is justified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (folder_name, parent_folder_id, user_google_email) are already documented. The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Creates a new folder in Google Drive.' The verb 'Creates' and resource 'folder' distinguish it from sibling tools like create_drive_file or create_doc. The added detail about supporting shared drives further specifies 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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. The description does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools for creating files or documents. The only hint is 'supporting creation within shared drives,' but this does not constitute explicit usage direction.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it is temporary and diagnostic, but doesn't detail what 'runtime/source information' includes or any constraints beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with the verb and purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value, no repetition of schema data, and the structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one param, output schema exists), and annotations cover safety. However, the unexplained parameter and lack of detail about the returned information make this minimally adequate rather than complete. The description does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does 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 the 'user_google_email' parameter at all. The agent is given no hint about why this email is needed or how it affects results, leaving a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns runtime/source information with a specific diagnostic purpose (verifying code checkout for stale MCP instances). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly about document, Gmail, or Drive operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: use for diagnosing stale MCP server instances. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but for a temporary diagnostic tool, the intended use case is sufficiently specific.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating it gets information, which aligns with annotations but does not provide additional details like potential errors or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that delivers the core purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only getter with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It might benefit from mentioning that the contact must be retrieved via a prior list/search, but that is not essential given the tool's straightforward nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (contact_id and user_google_email) having explicit descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get detailed information about a specific contact' clearly states the tool's verb and resource, and distinguishes it from list/search siblings by emphasizing 'specific contact.' However, it does not explicitly mention that the contact is identified by an ID, leaving a minor gap in precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific contact in mind, which is a clear context, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like search_contacts or list_contacts. No exclusions or alternative suggestions 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as error behavior or return format, but it also does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence: 'Get one response from the form.' It is front-loaded, immediately conveys the purpose, and contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only getter with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not mention the necessity of a response_id (though the schema covers it) or provide any context about what a response contains, but given the tool's simplicity, the missing details are minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get one response from the form' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (form response), with the scope 'one' distinguishing it from listing all responses (e.g., list_form_responses). It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 it requires a response_id or that list_form_responses should be used for multiple responses. The usage context is left entirely to inference from the schema.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds value by explaining that include_speaker_notes reports speaker notes and the shape object ID, and that the shape ID is the only valid target for insertText/deleteText on notes—useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It states the core purpose efficiently, and all additional necessary detail is delegated to the input schema and annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool, the description is adequate, especially given the presence of an output schema (which explains return values) and rich annotations. It could mention that it returns presentation-level metadata rather than slide contents, but that's an enhancement, not a gap, because the schema and output schema cover the specifics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the tool description. The description itself doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's include_speaker_notes parameter has a rich explanation covering both its purpose and its relation to editing operations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 resource ('a Google Slides presentation'), which distinguishes it from tools for other Google services. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling presentation tools like get_page, which retrieves page-level details, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 get_page or batch_update_presentation. The only usage hint is buried in the include_speaker_notes parameter description, which mentions when to pass True and references batch_update_presentation for writing notes, but that's parameter-level guidance, not tool selection 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?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it retrieves 'metadata' (not content), but this is minimal additional context. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words, perfectly sized for the tool's simple purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented externally. The description is adequate for a simple metadata retrieval operation. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need for authorization) or what 'metadata' includes, but these are minor given the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter (user_google_email) with full description coverage (100%), so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('Programmable Search Engine metadata'), clearly stating the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools, but the resource is specific enough that confusion is unlikely.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving metadata about a search engine but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other tools or any exclusions. It's clear only from the tool name and context, not from explicit instructions.
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?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It does not mention error behavior, permissions, or response specifics, so it contributes no additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with zero filler or redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the one-sentence description is sufficient to convey the core function. It lacks usage nuances but is complete for basic selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already provides the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra information about the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details of a specific task' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('specific task'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_tasks (multiple tasks) and manage_task (mutations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The usage is only implied by the phrase 'specific task,' leaving the agent to infer that this is for single-task retrieval rather than listing or managing 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the operation type; it does not mention return format, error cases, or required scopes. Since annotations carry the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it easy to parse and remember.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 required params, no nesting), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states the action and target, while the schema and annotations cover the remaining details. Slight deduction for not mentioning relationship to sibling list tools, but this is minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameters (user_google_email and task_list_id) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline of 3 is warranted because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'get' with the resource 'task list', clearly indicating a read operation for a single list. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_task_lists' (which lists all) and 'get_task' (which retrieves a task within a list), 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as 'list_task_lists' or 'get_task'. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent without sufficient decision support.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds minimal context by clarifying the scope ('for the user') and the terminology ('labels'). It does not disclose pagination behavior or other operational details, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It could mention pagination or the required user_google_email, but those are already covered by the schema, so the description remains sufficient without being verbose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not compensate beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('contact groups'), with an explicit alias ('labels') and scope ('for the user'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contact_group and manage_contact_group.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 get_contact_group or list_contacts. The description only implies usage through its name and does not mention exclusions or alternative scenarios.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description only adds the max_comments limiting behavior. It does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or whether resolved comments are included.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (list all comments) and includes the optional parameter. 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a simple tool, annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks details like whether comments include resolved ones, pagination behavior, or any filtering. It does not fully leverage the context, leaving some ambiguity about the return set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 max_comments as a limit on results, but does not clarify document_id or user_google_email, although their names are somewhat self-explanatory. The description adds limited value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all comments from a Google Document, specifying the resource (Google Document) and the action (list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_spreadsheet_comments and manage_document_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the tool lists comments and mentions an optional limit using max_comments, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. No alternatives are 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?
Annotations already declare the tool safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the optional max_comments limiting behavior, but does not disclose return format or any other behavioral traits. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with front-loaded purpose and a brief optional parameter note. No filler or unnecessary detail, perfectly sized for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, strong annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the action, the resource, and the optional limit. It lacks usage guidance, but that is already penalized in the usage_guidelines dimension.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 that max_comments limits results, but leaves spreadsheet_id and user_google_email unaddressed. While these are somewhat self-explanatory from names, the description only partially covers parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'list' with a clear resource 'comments from a Google Spreadsheet', distinguishing it from sibling tools like manage_spreadsheet_comment (manage vs list) and list_document_comments/list_presentation_comments (different resources).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It simply states what it does without contextualizing its place among siblings.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a scoping constraint ('user has access to'), which is useful context. However, it does not elaborate on pagination or output behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the added behavioral insight is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the essential information without any filler or extraneous details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only listing operation with complete schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core functionality. However, the absence of any mention of related tools or potential limitations makes it not fully complete in the broader context of many similar Drive-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (max_results, user_google_email) already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional semantics or usage details for the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('lists') and clearly identifies the resource ('spreadsheets from Google Drive') and scope ('that the user has access to'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_spreadsheet_info or read_sheet_values which target specific spreadsheets or data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 list_drive_items or search_drive_files. There are no exclusions or explicit mentions of suitable contexts, leaving the agent without decision support 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as pagination behavior or that 'all' may be subject to max_results limits, which could mislead.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete for a simple list operation. However, the word 'all' could conflict with max_results/pagination, so a brief mention of pagination would have made it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with all three parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already explains page_token, max_results, and user_google_email. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all task lists'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_task_list (singular) and list_tasks (tasks within a list). The scope is explicitly 'for the user', making its 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need to enumerate all task lists for a user, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_task_list or manage_task_list. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so usage guidance is only implied.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the core action, such as pagination or default filtering, though the schema provides extensive details. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is useful, with no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for tool selection given the rich schema and output schema. It does not summarize the filtering parameters, but the schema fully compensates for that. It is slightly less complete than a description that explicitly mentions filtering capabilities, but still sufficient for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for all 13 parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents each parameter's purpose and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'tasks' and scoping 'in a specific task list'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task (single task) and list_task_lists (task lists).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 get_task or list_task_lists. It only states the basic action, leaving the selection entirely to the agent 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it includes 'all source files', which gives some scope context, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'complete' entails beyond 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It immediately states the verb and resource, earning its place without fluff. This is ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple getter tool. It communicates the essential scope ('complete project details including all source files') and does not need to explain return values or safety, as those are covered by structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's field labels. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'complete project details including all source files', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_script_projects (which lists projects) and get_script_content (which focuses on content). The scope is explicit and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 alternatives, use cases, or exclusion criteria. The description merely states what it does without contextualizing when the agent should choose 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'all labels' and 'user's Gmail account') but does not discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or response format. This is acceptable but not additive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of eight words, efficiently stating the tool's purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with full annotation coverage and an output schema present, the description is complete. It clearly defines the scope ('all labels in the user's Gmail account') and does not need to explain return values or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the single parameter `user_google_email` with the description 'The user's Google email address. Required.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no further parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Lists' with the resource 'all labels in the user's Gmail account', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like manage_gmail_label (which manages labels) and list_gmail_filters (which lists filters). 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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. It does not mention manage_gmail_label for label mutations or any other sibling tools, so the agent receives no explicit context on selectable conditions or 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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific actions but does not disclose additional behavioral nuances such as irreversibility of delete, dependency on task_id for update/delete/move, or the meaning of 'move' (between lists vs. reordering). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and actions. No filler or repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 11 parameters and an output schema, but the description is minimal. While the schema fills in parameter details, the description could provide more context on action-specific parameter requirements (e.g., task_id needed for update/delete/move, destination_task_list for moves between lists). It is adequate for a basic understanding but not comprehensive for a multi-action mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description itself does not add new parameter details, but it does mention action types that map to the 'action' parameter. This meets the baseline but adds little beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does 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 ('manage') and resource ('tasks'), and enumerates the actions: create, update, delete, or move. It distinguishes from siblings like manage_task_list (task lists) and read-only tools like list_tasks/get_task by specifying task-level mutations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this when you need to create, update, delete, or move tasks. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., list_tasks for viewing) or provide guidance on which action to choose for specific scenarios. The 'within task lists' phrase gives partial context but no 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?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds that it uses the Drive API with a mimeType filter and returns a formatted list, but it does not elaborate on pagination behavior, auth requirements, or what 'formatted list' entails. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds only modest 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no fluff or redundancy. It efficiently states what the tool does and what it returns.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema present, the description is too thin. It explains the query as a name search but omits usage context for required parameters like user_google_email and does not specify how page_size affects results. This is insufficient for reliable tool invocation without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter explanations. It clarifies that 'query' is a name search, but it fails to explain 'page_size' and especially 'user_google_email' (a required parameter). This leaves the agent unsure how to populate essential inputs correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for Google Docs by name using Drive API with a mimeType filter. This distinguishes it from broader file search (search_drive_files) and Gmail search, making its 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for finding Google Docs specifically by name, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the non-mutating nature is clear. The description adds the specific check behavior but does not disclose how it handles multiple files with the same name, whether it returns partial matches, or what 'public link sharing' precisely entails (e.g., 'Anyone with link'). This is some added context but not rich behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the key action and result. No filler or redundant content. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) and high schema/annotation coverage, so describing return values is not obligatory. The description covers the primary scenario, but leaves minor ambiguities around search behavior (e.g., exact match, case sensitivity, multiple matches). Given the low complexity, this is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: each parameter has a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it simply echoes 'file name'. The drive_id parameter is well-documented in the schema, but the description doesn't clarify how it affects search results. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: it searches for a file by name and checks if public link sharing is enabled. This uses a specific verb ('searches', 'checks') and resource ('Drive file'), and is distinct from sibling tools like get_drive_file_permissions or get_drive_shareable_link.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use when you need to verify public link sharing on a named file. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, such as noting that get_drive_file_permissions provides broader permission details or that get_drive_shareable_link returns a link. No exclusions are mentioned.
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?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, and adds that members are included in the result. However, it does not describe error behavior (e.g., unknown group_id) or any other operational details beyond the annotations and schema, so it offers minimal additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and clearly states the tool's scope. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), a fully described input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what is needed for a simple read operation. The only missing element is explicit usage differentiation from siblings, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are fully described in the input schema with explicit descriptions (e.g., group_id: 'The contact group ID.', max_members: 'Maximum number of members to return (default: 100, max: 1000).', user_google_email: 'The user's Google email address. Required.'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's verb and resource specifically: 'Get details of a specific contact group including its members.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_contact_groups, which likely only lists groups without member details, and manage_contact_group for modifications.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need details of a single contact group, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_contact_groups for enumeration or search_contacts. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the verb 'Get'.
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the output (a URL). It does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or additional 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and 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.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich annotations and complete schema descriptions, the description suffices. It does not explain return values in detail, but the presence of an output schema fills that gap. It is complete enough for this straightforward tool, though it omits any caveats about URL expiry or usage constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'specific page (slide)', which aligns with page_object_id, but does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does 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 specific verb 'Generate' and a specific resource 'thumbnail URL for a specific page (slide) in a presentation.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_page or get_presentation by focusing on thumbnail URL generation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage context (obtaining a thumbnail URL for a slide) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds some behavioral context by noting that the response includes sheets, but it does not disclose additional details like error conditions, permission requirements, or the exact format of returned information beyond what the output schema already provides.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states what the tool does and what result to expect. There is no redundancy, filler, or repetition of schema details, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety behavior, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and key output characteristic ('including its sheets'). The only minor gap is not elaborating on the format of the spreadsheet_id (e.g., URL vs. raw ID), but this is likely covered elsewhere or by the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (spreadsheet_id and user_google_email) already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Gets') with a clear resource ('information about a specific spreadsheet') and explicitly scopes the result ('including its sheets'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_spreadsheets (which lists spreadsheets) and read_sheet_values (which reads cell values), making its function immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys that this is for retrieving metadata about a specific spreadsheet, which implies usage when a spreadsheet_id is known and high-level structure/sheet info is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as list_spreadsheets or read_sheet_values for different needs.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe mutation profile. The description adds context about supported source types (Drive/URL) but does not disclose other behavioral details such as effects on existing content or permission requirements. With annotations present, the bar is lower, so this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It clearly states the action and source in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context adequately. It clearly states the core operation, and the schema handles parameter details, while annotations handle safety. Minor additional context (e.g., prerequisites or error scenarios) would have pushed it higher, but the tool is well-specified already.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter and its purpose. The description's mention of 'from Drive or a URL' loosely corresponds to the image_source parameter but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Inserts') with a specific resource ('image into a Google Doc') and specifies the source ('from Drive or a URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like insert_doc_elements, 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the primary use case (inserting an image into a Google Doc) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. With many sibling tools like insert_doc_elements, explicit guidance would have been helpful, but the specificity of the action makes the intended context clear.
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope ('for a script project') and specifies 'all' deployments, but does not disclose pagination, auth requirements, or return details. This adds modest context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence that immediately states the action and resource. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description adequately states the scope and result, though it could explicitly mention the need for user_google_email or differentiate from manage_deployment, but these are largely covered by structured fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with both script_id and user_google_email already described. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource 'deployments' scoped to 'a script project'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_deployment (which manages/mutates deployments) and list_versions (which lists versions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for read-only retrieval of deployments, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like manage_deployment or state when to prefer this over other list tools. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are mentioned.
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements, so it provides no extra value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the purpose without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter, complete schema, strong annotations, and an output schema present. The description adequately states what it does, though it lacks additional context like scope limitations (e.g., delegated accounts) or data freshness. It is nearly complete for this straightforward list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% as the sole parameter `user_google_email` has a clear description ('The user's Google email address. Required.'). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so it sits at the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource 'all Gmail filters' and scope 'in the user's mailbox'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_gmail_filter (which mutates filters) and list_gmail_labels (different resource).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies its use for listing filters but does not mention that it is the read-only counterpart to manage_gmail_filter or provide any exclusions. Usage is implied, not 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that it uses the Drive API to find Apps Script files, which is a useful implementation detail. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or whether it returns only projects the user owns or all accessible projects. With annotations carrying the safety burden, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, containing only two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Lists Google Apps Script projects accessible to the user'), and the second adds relevant implementation context ('Uses Drive API to find Apps Script files'). Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple: a list operation with well-specified schema and annotations. The description confirms the scope (accessible to the user) and the underlying method (Drive API). The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The only minor gap is not mentioning that this may only return projects with Drive visibility, but that is covered by 'accessible to the user.' Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters (page_size, page_token, user_google_email) beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify how page_size interacts with results or what page_token refers to. The schema fully documents parameter names and defaults, so no deduction is warranted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Lists Google Apps Script projects accessible to the user.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_script_project (which fetches a single project) and list_deployments (which lists deployments). The mention of 'Drive API' further clarifies the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to enumerate all Apps Script projects visible to the user, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not say 'For a specific project, use get_script_project' or 'For scripts that are running, use list_script_processes.' This is implied usage rather than 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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool supports delete operations, which is consistent with the annotations, but offers no additional side-effect context such as behavior on missing rules or replacement semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one clear sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and immediately enumerates the three operations. There is no filler or redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and thorough annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety. It provides enough high-level context for a complex tool, though it could mention distinctions from nearby formatting tools. Overall, it is adequate given the structured data available.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'manages conditional formatting rules on a Google Sheet' and enumerates the supported operations: adding, updating, and deleting. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like format_sheet_range, which handles other formatting aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for conditional formatting rule management but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over format_sheet_range or other sheet-modification tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and operations.
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?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's statement 'Batch create, update, or delete contacts' adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations provide. It does not disclose aspects like partial-failure behavior, permissions, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes a brief consolidation note with zero filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is complex, but the input schema is exceptionally rich and the output schema is present. The description adequately identifies the tool's role as a batch mutation endpoint, though it could ideally include a pointer to the singular manage_contact tool for non-batch operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed per-parameter descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb phrase 'Batch create, update, or delete contacts' that clearly identifies the resource (contacts) and the batch scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it is a consolidated replacement for three prior batch tools, making its role clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys clear context: this is the batch counterpart for contact mutations, and it explicitly says it replaces three older batch tools. However, it does not provide explicit guidance about when to use this instead of the singular 'manage_contact' sibling, nor does it list 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?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so mutation risk is known. The description adds the specific actions like revoking and transferring ownership, but does not elaborate on consequences, irreversibility, or notification behaviors beyond what the schema already states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise, front-loaded sentences. It wastes no words and communicates the tool's scope and key operations immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description sufficiently frames a complex permission-management tool. It lacks only explicit cross-referencing to permission-related sibling tools, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with each of the 14 parameters individually described. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond listing high-level capabilities, so it stays at the baseline for a fully schema-documented tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the resource (Google Drive file/folder access permissions) and lists the exact supported operations: granting, batch-granting, updating, revoking, and ownership transfer. The 'consolidated tool' and 'single entry point' framing help distinguish it from more specialized permission siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a one-stop tool for drive access management but never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives like set_drive_file_permissions or get_drive_file_permissions. No when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided.
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the RSVP capability, but no deeper behavioral context (e.g., notification side effects, that updates can be partial) is provided. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two short sentences with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the operation list, earning both sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having 30 parameters, the schema provides rich descriptions for each, and an output schema exists. The description orients the agent to the tool's broad purpose, though it could have added one line about the action-driven parameter usage. Overall, the structured data compensates for the minimal description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description only echoes the action enum values (create/update/delete/rsvp) already present in the schema, adding marginal semantic value beyond the structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages calendar events and lists the supported operations (creating, updating, deleting, and RSVP), which goes beyond a generic verb and distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_events and manage_out_of_office.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for calendar event mutations but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, nor any exclusions. The distinction from read-only tools like get_events is left to the agent to infer.
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?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: OOO events auto-decline invitations and set the user's status across Google Workspace. It does not contradict the destructiveHint or readOnlyHint annotations, and the auto-decline behavior is meaningful for agent decisions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource; the second adds essential behavioral details. Highly efficient and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool has many parameters and actions, the rich schema and output schema fully cover operational details. The description provides the necessary OOO-specific context and status effect, making the tool understandable without over-explaining. Slightly more could be said about action types, but structured data compensates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 14 parameters, including defaults, required conditions, and format examples. The description adds only high-level context and does not need to duplicate schema details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages Out of Office events on Google Calendar and explains their special effects (auto-declining invitations and setting status across Workspace). It distinguishes from generic event tools like manage_event by focusing on OOO-specific behavior, though the verb 'Manages' is somewhat generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for Out of Office events but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like manage_event or manage_focus_time. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the OOO context.
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of 'including shared drives' adds a useful scope detail not covered by annotations. However, the description does not disclose search limitations (e.g., owner-based query issues) or pagination behavior; those are left to the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and scope without any wasted words. It is concise and appropriately sized for the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich input schema (11 params, 100% coverage), the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description needs only to clarify purpose and scope. It does so effectively by specifying files/folders and shared drives. It could mention more about search behavior, but the schema covers the gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The top-level description does not add parameter semantics; all parameter meaning is already fully documented in the input schema, including examples, defaults, and notes on query operators.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Searches for files and folders within a user's Google Drive, including shared drives.' This uses a specific verb ('Searches') and resource (files/folders in Google Drive) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_drive_items by emphasizing search functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for searching Google Drive files but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_drive_items or search_docs). It lacks direct exclusions or recommendations for choosing between tools.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context by specifying that the tool saves the PDF to Google Drive, clarifying the side effect location. It does not mention overwrite behavior or auth limitations, but the core side effect is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, the schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, and an output schema exists. The description adequately explains the core operation without needing to detail optional parameters or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Exports a Google Doc to PDF format and saves it to Google Drive.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that read or create docs, as it uniquely mentions PDF conversion and Drive save.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 get_drive_file_download_url or other export methods. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.
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?
The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and does not contradict them. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as authentication requirements or error conditions, which are not critical given the simple read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that clearly conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the resource type (file or folder) and the action, and the existing structured data handles the remaining details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with both parameters (file_id and user_google_email) already described in detail. The tool description adds no new semantic information about the parameters, so it does not enhance what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Gets the shareable link for a Google Drive file or folder.' It uses a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('shareable link'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_drive_file_download_url or get_drive_file_content that serve 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a shareable link is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_drive_file_download_url or get_drive_file_permissions. It lacks exclusions or references to alternative tools, making the usage context clear but not differentiated.
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?
Beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior), the description adds that Google Drive automatically converts the source spreadsheet to native Google Sheets format while preserving rows, columns, sheets, and values. It also warns about memory limits for file_path in the schema, providing useful 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses three concise sentences to convey purpose, conversion behavior, and a usage tip. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff, though it could be slightly tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a detailed schema and an output schema, the description adequately covers the core conversion behavior and the key file_path vs content trade-off. It does not mention mutual exclusivity of content/file_url/file_path, but the schema descriptions provide enough context for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the tool description adds no significant parameter semantics beyond the schema's own documentation. The file_path guidance for batch operations is echoed in the schema description, so the description itself contributes little additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool imports spreadsheets (XLSX, XLS, ODS, CSV, TSV) into Google Sheets format with automatic conversion. This verb+resource+format detail distinguishes it from siblings like import_to_google_doc and import_to_google_slides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using file_path for batch operations to avoid loading full file contents into context, which is a useful usage tip. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like create_spreadsheet or other import tools, so guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is only implied.
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the scope 'accessible to the authenticated user', which is useful context, but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination or result ordering.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one parameter, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema handles that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 100% of the parameters, including a description for user_google_email. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a list of calendars accessible to the authenticated user. It uses a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('list of calendars'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_calendar or get_events.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a list of calendars is needed but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no guidance about prerequisites or 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.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include destructiveHint: true, but the description adds valuable context by explaining specific behaviors: removing INBOX archives an email, and adding TRASH deletes it. This goes beyond the annotation to explain the mechanism of destructive actions. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by two clarifying use-case examples. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, annotations, output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and key behavioral scenarios (archiving and deletion). It lacks explicit mention of the batch alternative and edge cases like simultaneous add/remove, but the structured schema and annotations cover the remaining details adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds meaning by using concrete examples of add/remove label IDs (INBOX, TRASH) that clarify the real-world effect of the add_label_ids and remove_label_ids parameters, enriching the schema's bare definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Adds or removes labels from a Gmail message.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool batch_modify_gmail_message_labels, though the singular 'a Gmail message' implies single-message scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete usage examples ('To archive an email, remove the INBOX label. To delete an email, add the TRASH label.'), which imply when the tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_modify_gmail_message_labels, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive for tool selection.
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the primary use but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, error handling, or atomicity. It does not contradict annotations, but adds limited transparency beyond what annotations and schema provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value. It avoids verbosity and presents the scope of the tool efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and rich schema, the description provides sufficient orientation: it names operations, states it is the primary update method, and aligns with annotations. It does not explain atomicity or failure modes, but the output schema and annotations cover much of the necessary context, making it reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'requests' parameter listing supported request types in detail. The description mentions updating metadata and settings, but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Apply batch updates to a Google Form.' It enumerates supported operations (adding, updating, deleting form items, metadata and settings) and explicitly distinguishes it as 'the primary method for modifying form content after creation,' differentiating it from sibling tools like create_form and get_form.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating this is the primary method for modifying an existing form, implying it should be used after creation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write operation, and the description adds that the copy maintains all formatting and content. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though it does not discuss permissions or ownership.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that state the core function and then add valuable context. No redundant or unnecessary wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and result, complemented by a full schema and output schema. It is sufficient for understanding the tool, though it could mention prerequisites or side effects like permission inheritance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a copy of an existing Google Drive file with an optional new name and location, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_drive_file or update_drive_file by focusing on duplication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for copying template documents but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks direct guidance on choosing this tool over siblings like create_drive_file.
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'This permanently deletes the script project. The action cannot be undone,' reinforcing the irreversible nature beyond what annotations convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: two sentences that state the action and add the critical permanence warning. 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.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential irreversible nature. It lacks usage guidance but is otherwise complete for a simple delete operation; a stronger description might explicitly warn to confirm the script ID.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Deletes an Apps Script project' with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_script_project or update_script_content, as deletion is unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for permanently removing a script project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any caveats or prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks explicit contextual direction.
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?
The description adds some behavior details beyond annotations, such as hex color format and Sheets number format types, and the default sheet selection. However, it does not disclose whether formatting merges with existing formatting or replaces it, nor any side effects or error behavior. The annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then elaborating with relevant parameter constraints. No redundant content, filler, or unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 13 parameters and annotations, the description covers the main purpose, key value format constraints, and default behavior. It does not need to explain return values due to the presence of an output schema. A minor gap is not stating the effect on existing formatting, but overall it provides adequate context for selection and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description enriches understanding by clarifying acceptable color formats (#RRGGBB), providing examples of number format types, and explaining the default sheet behavior for ranges without a sheet name. This adds value beyond the schema's brief descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Applies formatting') and enumerates the types of formatting (colors, number formats, wrapping, alignment, styling), distinguishing it from sibling tools like modify_sheet_values or read_sheet_values. It also adds a useful default behavior note, making the tool's scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for formatting ranges but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, mention exclusions, or reference sibling tools. The only contextual note is the default first-sheet behavior, which is more of a parameter detail than usage guidance. It provides some operational context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.
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?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying exactly what metadata categories are returned (permissions, parent folder IDs, ownership, lifecycle timestamps), which goes beyond the annotation flags.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that lists the key metadata categories without any filler. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only metadata lookup with a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently communicates the tool's purpose and return scope. It could mention error conditions or permission requirements, but these are not critical given the output schema and safety annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters are fully described in the input schema with clear purposes (file_id and user_google_email). The description itself does not add any parameter-specific details, so it relies on the schema's complete coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('Google Drive file'), and enumerates concrete metadata categories: sharing permissions, parent folder IDs, ownership, and lifecycle timestamps. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_drive_file_content or get_drive_file_download_url.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a caller needs comprehensive file metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as check_drive_file_public_access or get_drive_shareable_link. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the burden. The description adds useful context about the returned data (active users, executions, failures) and confirms the read-only nature. It does not cover pagination or time range defaults, but these are not critical given the annotations and 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return value documentation is handled. The description provides a high-level overview of metrics types and time dimension, and annotations cover safety. It could mention when to use it relative to similar tools, but for a straightforward read-only metrics tool this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for script_id, user_google_email, and metrics_granularity. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, but the schema fully documents the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Gets execution metrics for a script project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling script tools like get_script_project or get_script_content by focusing on execution analytics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving script execution metrics over time, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'recent' scope and 'user's scripts' context, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose behavioral details like pagination behavior, ordering, or filtering beyond what the schema specifies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb 'Lists' and includes all essential information without redundancy. It wastes no words and is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations. It doesn't explain what 'execution processes' mean in detail, but that is likely domain-standard. The only minor gap is that 'recent' is not precisely defined, but this is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes all three parameters (page_size, script_id, user_google_email) with their types and defaults, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level information, so it does not enhance what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource 'recent execution processes for user's scripts', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_script_projects and list_versions by focusing on execution processes rather than projects or versions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving execution history, which provides context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like get_script_metrics or list_script_projects, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by explaining that versions are immutable snapshots, which informs the agent about the nature of the data. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide a brief, relevant clarification about version immutability. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is sufficiently complete: the input schema fully documents parameters, annotations cover the safety profile, an output schema exists, and the description provides essential conceptual context about what versions are. No significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both required parameters (script_id and user_google_email), so the schema already provides complete parameter documentation. The description does not add additional meaning or usage details for the parameters, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lists all versions of a script project.' The verb ('lists') and resource ('versions of a script project') are specific, and the clarification that versions are immutable snapshots distinguishes this tool from get_version and create_version siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool by explaining that versions are created on deployment or explicit creation, suggesting it is used to inspect the history of a script. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_version or list_deployments, nor does it mention 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'consolidated tool' context, which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral traits like merge/replace/remove update modes or the requirement of contact_id for update/delete. These are left to the schema descriptions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and every word earns its place. 'Create, update, or delete a contact' is concise and complete, followed by the consolidation note that explains why this tool exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 26-parameter CRUD tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description gives enough orientation (verb + consolidation) while the schema handles parameter-level details. It could briefly mention that batch operations are handled elsewhere, but the existing text is adequate given the schema size.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter with detailed descriptions, including deprecated aliases, mode behavior, and formatting. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond 'contact', so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb + resource: 'Create, update, or delete a contact.' It clearly distinguishes this from the 100+ sibling tools by stating it consolidates three former contact tools (create_contact, update_contact, delete_contact). This is a clear, unambiguous statement of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says this tool replaces create_contact, update_contact, and delete_contact, which tells the agent when to use it for those operations. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it (e.g., batch operations via manage_contacts_batch), leaving a small gap in exclusion 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?
The description discloses a key behavioral constraint—the Drive API cannot anchor comments to text—which goes beyond annotations. It does not discuss permissions, reversibility of resolve, or other side effects, but annotations already signal non-read-only behavior. Net contribution is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact summary followed by a bulleted list of actions, each with dependencies. The note about Drive API limitations is the only extra context and is valuable. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the three operations and their parameter dependencies, with an output schema available for return values. It lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., edit permissions) and error conditions, but given the multi-action scope, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying which parameters each action requires (comment_content for create; comment_id and comment_content for reply; comment_id for resolve). It also enumerates the three valid action values. It does not describe document_id or user_google_email, but their names are self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages document comments and enumerates three specific actions (create, reply, resolve), distinguishing it from read-only sibling list_document_comments and other resource-specific comment tools. The scope is explicit and matches the title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys when to use each action by listing required parameters, and the Drive API anchoring note imposes a limitation on creation. However, it does not explicitly point to list_document_comments for viewing or mention alternative tools, so usage vs alternatives is only implied.
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?
Annotations already mark the operation read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: the return of both Message IDs and Thread IDs, Gmail web links for manual verification, and pagination support. It does not disclose potential rate limits or the additional cost of fetching headers, but the schema covers the include_headers behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, return value, and pagination feature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and full schema parameter descriptions, the description provides sufficient context for a search tool. It covers the main purpose, return values, and pagination. It does not mention include_headers, but that parameter's behavior is fully described in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions query and page_token but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as Gmail search operator support or pagination token usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches a user's Gmail messages based on a query, returns Message IDs and Thread IDs, and provides web links for verification. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch content or manage labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clarifies the search context and mentions pagination but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_gmail_message_content or search_drive_files. No when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative recommendations are provided.
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?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds that it searches by text/time and across spaces, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, or multi-space scoping beyond what the schema already indicates. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence: 'Searches for messages in Google Chat spaces by text content and/or time range.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler or redundant phrases, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a rich output schema, detailed parameter descriptions, and annotations, the description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It captures the essential search capability and differentiates from siblings, though it does not explicitly mention cross-space search or pagination—details available in the schema. The overall package is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 83%, so parameters are well-documented (e.g., query optional, time_filter syntax, max_spaces defaults). The description adds a high-level mapping of 'text content' to query and 'time range' to time_filter, which is helpful but does not add new meaning beyond the existing schema documentation. The baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Searches for messages in Google Chat spaces by text content and/or time range.' It specifies the resource (messages in Google Chat spaces) and the two search dimensions (text content, time range), distinguishing it from Gmail search and other message-related tools like get_messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: searching for Chat messages by content or time. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios (e.g., 'use get_messages to fetch a specific thread' or 'use search_gmail_messages for email'). The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use 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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds some context by noting it's a 'high-level tool for the most common permission changes' and that it handles link sharing. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing file-level settings or what exactly happens when link_sharing is set to 'off.' The description does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, two short paragraphs, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information: the first defines the tool, the second clarifies scope and alternatives. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete due to the confusing requirement of user_google_email. It claims the tool is only for file-level link sharing, yet it requires a user email, which strongly suggests individual user permissions. This contradiction is not addressed, potentially leading an agent to misuse the tool. The description should explain why user_google_email is needed despite the stated scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description does not explain why user_google_email is required if the tool is not for individual permissions, which is a notable gap. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Sets file-level sharing settings and controls link sharing for a Google Drive file or folder.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by labeling itself as a 'high-level tool for the most common permission changes' and explicitly naming alternatives for individual user/group permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to toggle "anyone with the link" access or configure file-level sharing behavior.' It also specifies when not to use it and names alternatives: 'For managing individual user/group permissions, use share_drive_file or update_drive_permission instead.' This is clear and actionable.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation. The description adds that multiple formatting operations can be combined in a single call, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or behavior on invalid indices.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant text. Efficiently summarizes the tool's capability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 30 parameters and an output schema, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description provides a clear high-level overview of the tool's purpose and combinations, though it could mention using indices from inspect_doc_structure but that's already in the parameter description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb ('Apply') and names the resource ('paragraph-level formatting, heading styles, and/or list formatting to a range in a Google Doc'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools that handle text insertion or document-wide updates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating what it can do and that all operations can be applied in a single call, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria. It provides clear context for when to choose this tool for paragraph styling.
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?
Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds that rows are added to the end and the table range automatically extends, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant information. Each sentence earns its place by stating what the tool does and a key prerequisite.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and annotations covering the mutation and side-effect profile, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core behavior and the necessary preliminary step, without needing to detail return values or error handling for this level of complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters described. The description only reinforces the relationship between table_id and list_sheet_tables, which is already in the schema, and does not add meaningful extra semantics for parameters like values or spreadsheet_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool 'Appends rows to a structured table in a Google Sheet', specifying the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_table_with_data and modify_sheet_values by focusing on appending to existing structured tables, and mentions the automatic extension of the table range.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises 'Use list_sheet_tables first to find the table ID', providing a concrete prerequisite. It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the context within the Sheets toolset makes when-to-use clear enough.
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?
Given the annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about Send As and reply draft support, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool creates a new draft each time (idempotency), what happens to the draft after creation, or any auth nuances beyond the required parameter. The extra context is helpful 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences pack in the core purpose and key capabilities. Every clause adds value without repetition or filler. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, rich schema, output schema), the description provides a competent high-level overview. It doesn't mention all features like quote_original or include_signature, but those are thoroughly documented in the schema. For an agent, the overview plus schema is sufficient to understand the tool's role and major switchable behaviors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level meaning by grouping parameters: 'new drafts and reply drafts' (thread_id, in_reply_to, quote_original), 'optional attachments' (attachments), and 'Send As' (from_email/from_name). This helps the agent understand how parameters relate, going beyond the schema's individual descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Creates a draft email in the user's Gmail account.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like send_gmail_message and get_gmail_message_content by focusing on drafting. The detail about supporting new and reply drafts adds further precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you want to create a draft rather than send. It also mentions features like reply drafts and Send As, which signal when to use those capabilities. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., send_gmail_message) for the complementary action, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about the Apps Script API limitation, enhancing transparency beyond the structured hints. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and important contextual constraint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the key limitation and purpose, and the output schema exists to explain return values. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at next steps or code format, but it is sufficient given the available structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions for trigger_type, schedule, and function_name. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema fully compensates, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Generates Apps Script code for creating triggers' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the API limitation, which helps distinguish it from other script management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (when you need trigger creation code) by explaining that the API cannot create triggers directly. However, it does not explicitly name 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.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: native docs are exported as text/CSV, Office files are unzipped, PDFs may fall back to a download hint for scanned images, images return base64 with MIME metadata, and other binaries are handled with UTF-8 detection. This adds significant context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by bullet points for each file-type behavior. Each bullet contributes unique information with no redundancy or filler, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the read-only annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary context: shared drives, format-specific extraction, fallbacks, and binary handling. It does not explain errors or auth, but those are already covered by annotations and the user_google_email parameter. The coverage is strong, though not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both params (file_id and user_google_email) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'by ID', which duplicates schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Retrieves the content of a specific Google Drive file by ID' and then details format-specific behaviors, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from download-URL or search siblings by focusing on content extraction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description (i.e., use when you need file content), but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. For example, it does not mention get_drive_file_download_url as the alternative for when a URL is sufficient. This falls into 'implied usage' rather than clear, explicit guidance.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, reducing the burden. The description adds useful behavioral context: ignored parameters when event_id is provided, the impact of 'detailed' on recurring instances and event types, and the inclusion of attachment details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value (retrieval modes, keyword search, optional query). No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters and rich schema descriptions, the description covers the core usage modes effectively. It doesn't enumerate every edge case, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with the comprehensive schema and output schema present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only mentioning that 'query' searches within event fields. The schema itself already provides rich descriptions for all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves events from a Google Calendar, with explicit modes for single event by ID, multiple events by time range, and keyword search. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_calendars or manage_event, 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use single-event retrieval vs time range vs keyword search, and notes that event_id takes precedence. It gives clear context on usage modes, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it saves to disk, returns a temporary URL valid for 1 hour in HTTP mode, and may re-fetch message metadata. Annotations provide limited safety info (readOnlyHint=false), so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects and output behavior, which it does effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the main action, then breaks down output modes in two clear sentences, and ends with a relevant behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and the input schema is thorough, the description provides the essential extra context: mode-specific outputs, time validity, and side effects. It does not explain error cases or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the tool's moderate complexity and the schema richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all four parameters including return_base64. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level information, but since the schema fully documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb ('Downloads') and resource ('email attachment'), and further specifies it saves to local disk. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_gmail_message_content by focusing on attachment content, and the mode-specific output details reinforce its unique purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when to use the tool by explaining its behavior in stdio and HTTP modes, which helps select it for attachment downloads. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios without needing explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 25-message limit and the rationale ('to prevent SSL connection exhaustion'), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations and schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. The second sentence explains a practical constraint without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is straightforward, with full schema coverage and an output schema available. The description covers batch size and rationale, and the sibling list includes the singular variant, making the context clear. It doesn't discuss error handling or partial failures, but that's not critical for a read-only batch retriever.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves content of multiple Gmail messages in a single batch request. The verb 'retrieves' with the resource 'Gmail messages' and the scope 'batch' distinctly differentiate it from the singular get_gmail_message_content sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides the key context of batching up to 25 messages per request, which guides when to use this tool over the singular version. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this for multiple messages instead of single fetch' or name the alternative, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.
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 annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context beyond these: the batch limit of 25 threads and the rationale (SSL connection exhaustion). The parameter description also notes automatic batching in chunks of 25, which is additional behavioral detail. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second provides a key constraint. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary concise description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and schema descriptions cover all parameters, the description only needs to convey the tool's unique value and constraints. It does that well by highlighting batch retrieval and the 25-thread limit. It could mention alternatives for full completeness, but the existing information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. The schema already contains detailed explanations for thread_ids (batching) and body_format (text/html/raw), so no compensation is needed. The description adds no extra value here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves the content of multiple Gmail threads in a single batch request.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gmail_thread_content (single thread) and get_gmail_messages_content_batch (messages, not threads) by focusing on 'multiple threads' and 'batch'. The addition of the 25-thread limit 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching multiple threads at once and provides a rationale ('to prevent SSL connection exhaustion'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the name and context make batch usage clear. Given the existence of a sibling for single threads, a brief 'for a single thread, use get_gmail_thread_content' would have made it a 5.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the optional max_comments limit, which clarifies that all comments are returned unless a limit is set. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, object, and a conditional modifier. No irrelevant detail or repetition of schema fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a read-only, idempotent annotation set and an output schema present, the description is adequate for a simple list operation. It covers the core behavior and the optional parameter, though it doesn't discuss pagination or auth prerequisites (already implied by user_google_email and annotations).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 max_comments as a limit, but presentation_id and user_google_email are only explained by their names and the tool's context. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully cover the required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' plus a clear resource 'all comments from a Google Presentation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_document_comments and manage_presentation_comment by specifying the presentation scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the tool is for reading comments from a presentation, but it does not explicitly contrast with related tools such as manage_presentation_comment or list_document_comments. The context is clear, but no direct exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's mention of 'delete' is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations and the schema already convey, such as irreversibility or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and consolidation. Every part contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 4 actions), the description provides a clear high-level overview. It does not explain action-specific behavior, but the schema and output schema fill that gap, making the description sufficiently complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, only summarizing the action types. It does not contradict or extend the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create, update, delete a contact group, or modify its members.' It uses a specific verb+resource structure and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is a 'Consolidated tool replacing create_contact_group, update_contact_group, delete_contact_group, and modify_contact_group_members.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly identifies the four tools it replaces, giving clear guidance on when to use this consolidated tool versus the alternatives. The action parameter enumeration further supports when to use it, though it stop short of describing when not to use other group-related tools like listing.
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?
Annotations already declare destructive and non-read-only behavior, so the description adds valuable context by disclosing key side effects: auto-declining meeting invitations and setting chat status to Do Not Disturb by default. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. It is concise and structured effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 16-parameter tool, the description is brief but sufficient because the schema carries detailed parameter semantics and the output schema is present. It explains the purpose and key side effects, making it complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does, though it does not enumerate the CRUD actions (already in the action parameter schema).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, though it does mention defaults behavior that maps to chat_status and auto_decline_mode. This adds some context but does not compensate for anything missing in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Manages Focus Time events on Google Calendar' and distinguishes these special events from regular calendar events by mentioning they auto-decline meeting invitations and set chat status to Do Not Disturb. This differentiates it from sibling tools like manage_event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context that this tool is for Focus Time events, which are distinct from regular events due to their auto-decline and DND behaviors. It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives 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.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds crucial context by stating that with merge=False, any existing file omitted from `files` is permanently deleted. It also clarifies that default is non-destructive (leaving other files untouched), which is beyond annotation info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently communicates the key merge/replace distinction without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior (merge vs replace and deletion). It lacks only explicit prerequisites or alternative tool references, but these are not necessary given the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including the merge behavior identical to the description. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update or create files in a script project' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_script_project and delete_script_project by focusing on file-level updates within an existing project. The merge behavior further clarifies scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains the default merge behavior and the alternative merge=False replacement, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like creating a new project with create_script_project, so it lacks 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.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the behavioral detail that the operation is performed as a single batch request, which is useful beyond the annotations. Annotations already flag destructive and non-read-only behavior; the description does not contradict them and provides mild additional context about the batch nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of a full output schema, detailed annotations, and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is concise but complete for a batch label modification tool. No critical behavioral or usage context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already stated, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Adds or removes'), a clear resource ('labels from multiple Gmail messages'), and a distinguishing scope ('in a single batch request'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool modify_gmail_message_labels, which handles single messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'in a single batch request' gives clear usage context: use this when modifying multiple messages at once. It does not explicitly name the alternative single-message tool or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when it applies.
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?
The description adds important behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: versions are immutable and cannot be modified after creation. This is disclosed clearly and complements the readOnlyHint=false annotation without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence 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.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With annotations indicating a non-read-only, non-destructive operation and an output schema present, the description fully conveys the core purpose and key immutable-snapshot constraint. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for script_id and user_google_email, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Creates a new immutable version') and resource ('script project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_version or list_versions. It also explains what a version is (a snapshot of current script code).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the use case clear: create an immutable snapshot of current script code. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the verb 'creates' naturally differentiates from get_version/list_versions.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it saves to local disk and returns either a file path (stdio) or a temporary URL valid for 1 hour (HTTP). This goes beyond the annotation defaults and clarifies the tool's side effects and result format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and then a concise breakdown of mode-specific returns. Every sentence adds value, and there is no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the core action, mode-specific output, and the temporary URL validity. No further context is needed 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.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (message_id and attachment_index are described, user_google_email is not). The description does not add details about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't compensate for the missing description of user_google_email. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Downloads an attachment from a Google Chat message and saves it to local disk.' This is a specific verb+resource+action, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_gmail_attachment_content (Gmail) and get_drive_file_download_url (Drive) by explicitly mentioning Google Chat.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use (Google Chat attachments) and even explains mode-specific behavior (stdio vs HTTP). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is sufficiently clear given the many sibling workspace tools.
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?
Annotations already flag the write side (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: Google Drive performs automatic conversion, preserves formatting, and file_path may involve non-streaming reads with memory limits. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The second sentence somewhat repeats 'automatic conversion' from the first, but the additional formatting details and batch guidance justify its presence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a rich schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. Missing explicit alternatives and auth prerequisites are minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 7 parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising file_path for batch operations and listing supported formats, helping disambiguate source parameter choices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb + resource ('Imports a file ... into Google Docs format'), enumerates supported formats, and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like import_to_google_slides and import_to_google_sheets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives explicit guidance to prefer file_path for batch operations to avoid loading file contents into context. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of 5.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying what is returned (IDs, names, ranges, column details) and that it lists all structured tables, which goes beyond the annotations. This is helpful context for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences total, front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence. Every word adds value: the first specifies the resource and output, the second gives the use case. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description appropriately summarizes the return values (IDs, names, etc.) at a high level. It also mentions the downstream use case, and annotations cover safety. This is complete for a simple read-only listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (spreadsheet_id and user_google_email) with 100% coverage. The description does not add further parameter details, but none are needed because the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all structured tables in a spreadsheet, specifying the resource (tables) and the action (lists). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it provides table IDs for append_table_rows, which is a sibling tool. This makes 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly suggests using this tool to find table IDs for append_table_rows, giving a concrete use case. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for table discovery. It doesn't reference alternative tools, but the named downstream use is sufficient guidance.
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?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it's a legacy tool, disabled with OAuth 2.1, and the system already auto-handles auth. This clarifies when the manual initiation is appropriate, which the annotations do not convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening statement, a note about legacy status, and a numbered list of use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the alternative guidance is succinct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's narrow scope and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, and important limitations. The main gap is parameter details, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no guidance on the meaning or usage of `service_name` and `user_google_email`. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description completely ignores them, 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: "Manually initiate Google OAuth authentication flow." This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are service-specific operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It lists three specific conditions for use and explicitly points to alternatives: "simply try calling the Google Workspace tool you need - it will automatically handle authentication if required."
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?
Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it states the tool automatically creates the header/footer if missing and replaces content if present, and it highlights a failure mode of the alternative. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or side effects beyond the header/footer content, so it stops short of 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening statement, a warning, and bullet points. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every section serves a purpose—the warning about batch_update_doc and the bulleted behaviors are both important. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main operational facets (create/update, no separate step needed, safety) and the alternative tool's limitations. However, it omits guidance on the optional header_footer_type parameter and does not discuss error scenarios or permissions, which leaves some gaps for a 5-parameter tool. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain returns, but a bit more context would make it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema—it only mentions 'content' generically and does not explain the optional header_footer_type field or the required user_google_email parameter. Since the schema already documents all fields, the description adds no significant value here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Safely creates or updates header/footer text in a Google Doc.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly warning against using batch_update_doc with create_header_footer for this purpose, establishing this tool as the default for header/footer content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('This is the default tool for header/footer content') and when not to ('Do NOT use batch_update_doc with create_header_footer just to set header/footer text'), including a rationale ('that low-level operation is only for advanced section-break workflows and can fail when the default header/footer already exists'). It also clarifies the automatic create-or-update behavior, leaving no ambiguity.
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?
Although annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false), the description adds valuable behavioral context about the document body starting at index 1 and total length 2, which helps the agent understand the internal structure. It also mentions the optional content insertion but does not disclose side effects like authentication or rate limits, though these are less critical for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear topic sentence followed by technical details and a recommended workflow. It is slightly verbose due to the explicit indices and workflow steps, but every sentence contributes useful information, and the main purpose appears first. No redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is highly complete for a creation tool: it states the primary function, optional content insertion, initial document structure, and a robust follow-up workflow (batch_update_doc + inspect_doc_structure). With an output schema present, it does not need to explain return values. The description covers both immediate constraints and recommended next steps, making it self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate on them. However, the description adds some context by explaining that content is 'optional initial plain text content' and gives structural details about how the document is initialized, but this is more about behavior than parameter semantics. Thus, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Creates a new Google Doc and optionally inserts initial content,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_update_doc, inspect_doc_structure, and get_doc_content by focusing on the creation action and its unique initial-state details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides a workflow: use create_doc for creation, then use batch_update_doc with insert_text and end_of_segment=true to append content, and finally inspect_doc_structure before formatting. This clearly guides the agent on when to use this tool versus alternatives and how to chain subsequent steps.
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?
The description discloses critical behavioral constraints: index must come from inspect_doc_structure, table_data must be a 2D list of strings with uniform rows, use empty strings not None, and verify with debug_table_structure. These go beyond annotations (readOnlyHint false, etc.) and add context for correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is lengthy but structured with sections and headers. It front-loads the purpose and then gives essential steps. However, there is redundancy in repeating the inspect_doc_structure requirement multiple times, so it is not maximally concise, but still efficient for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter tool with a mandatory prerequisite, the description covers the workflow, data format, and verification thoroughly. It does not need to explain return values as an output schema exists. This is essentially complete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description enriches table_data with an explicit example and explains the index requirement in detail. It also clarifies empty cell handling. This adds value beyond the schema, so a 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Creates a table and populates it with data in one reliable operation,' which clearly states the action (creates), resource (table), and scope (populates with data). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_table_rows or insert_doc_elements by focusing on table creation with data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a mandatory workflow: always call inspect_doc_structure first, use total_length as index, format data as 2D list, then call this function. It also recommends debug_table_structure after creation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context about what the tool reveals: exact dimensions, cell coordinates, current content, and insertion indices. It also explains how to read the output, going well beyond the structured annotation data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but well-structured with clear sections and bullet lists. It is front-loaded with the 'ESSENTIAL' tag and immediate use cases. While somewhat verbose, every section provides value for debugging scenarios.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers when to use it, what to expect in the output, and how to interpret that output. It also aligns with the output schema, making it a complete guide for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), including the meaning of table_index and user_google_email. The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, but the schema alone is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states this is a debugging tool for table structure, with concrete use cases like 'table not found' errors and mispopulated cells. It distinguishes itself from general inspection tools by focusing on table dimensions, positions, and insertion indices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('USE THIS IMMEDIATELY WHEN:') and workflow integration steps. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare against sibling tools like inspect_doc_structure, so it falls short of the highest score.
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?
The description reveals important behavioral details: 'Google Drive automatically converts the source presentation to native Google Slides format, preserving slides, layouts, text, and images.' This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate mutability) by explaining how the conversion works and what is preserved. The description does not contradict annotations, and the added context helps the agent understand side effects and expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately. The second paragraph is a single practical tip. No filler or redundant content. It earns a 5 because every sentence contributes useful information without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is sufficient. It covers the main function, automatic conversion, and preservation behavior. With a fully documented schema (100% coverage) and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values or every parameter. It lacks some context about authentication (user_google_email is required but not mentioned), but the schema clearly covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds parameter-level guidance by specifying 'For batch operations, prefer file_path for files on disk so callers do not need to load full file contents into their context.' This gives practical advice on when to use file_path over file_url, adding value beyond the schema's dry parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Imports a presentation (PPTX, PPT, ODP) into Google Slides format with automatic conversion.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_to_google_doc and import_to_google_sheets. The mention of specific formats (PPTX, PPT, ODP) further clarifies its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides practical guidance: 'For batch operations, prefer file_path for files on disk so callers do not need to load full file contents into their context.' This gives a clear usage context and suggests a preferred parameter choice. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_presentation or when not to use this tool, but the guidance is useful enough to score above the baseline.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable scoping behavior (how drive_id and resource_type alter the listing scope) and notes the include_items_from_all_drives condition, going beyond the annotation signals. It does not disclose pagination or rate-limit behavior, but for a straightforward list tool this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the remaining sentences concisely explain the key decision branches. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the comprehensive input schema, presence of an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the main behavioral branches of this listing tool. It could mention how it differs from search_drive_files or discuss edge cases like pagination, but it is complete enough for an agent to understand scope and core usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 13 parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining the relationship between drive_id, folder_id, and resource_type, and by clarifying when include_items_from_all_drives applies—context that is not evident from the individual parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Lists files/folders or shared drive containers', providing a specific verb and resource. The conditional logic for drive_id and resource_type clarifies distinct listing modes, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_drive_files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool based on whether drive_id is provided or resource_type is set to 'shared_drives'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_drive_files or get_drive_file_content, so it lacks 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.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotation flags, the description adds a valuable behavioral note that the Drive API cannot anchor comments to arbitrary text and that Slides comments are element-scoped via the API. It also states required parameters for each action, providing useful context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with a bulleted list of actions and a concise note about API limitations. Every sentence adds value and the structure makes requirements easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all three actions, their parameter requirements, and a key limitation, making it sufficient for correct invocation. It could be more explicit about the role of user_google_email and presentation_id, but the output schema and general context fill most gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by mapping actions to their required parameters (comment_content for create, comment_id/comment_content for reply, comment_id for resolve). It does not explain user_google_email or presentation_id, but these are likely self-evident from the tool context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Manage comments on a Google Presentation' and lists three specific actions (create, reply, resolve), distinguishing it from sibling comment-management tools for other Google Workspace types (e.g., manage_document_comment, manage_spreadsheet_comment).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by defining each action and its required parameters, implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use list_presentation_comments instead.
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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds meaningful context: a note that the Drive API cannot anchor comments to arbitrary text and that Sheets comments are cell-scoped. This helps set expectations about what the create action can and cannot do. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured with a brief overview followed by a bulleted action list. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the API limitation note is placed where relevant. No redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderately complex multi-action tool with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior, required parameters, and a key API constraint. It does not explain how cell scope is specified in practice or what happens with an invalid action, but the output schema and annotation context cover some gaps. Overall it is adequate for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does so effectively by mapping each action to its required parameters (create→comment_content; reply→comment_id+comment_content; resolve→comment_id). It leaves user_google_email and spreadsheet_id implicit, but their roles are reasonably inferable from the tool name and context. The nullable comment_id and comment_content are partially clarified through action-specific requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it manages comments on a Google Spreadsheet and enumerates three specific actions (create, reply, resolve) with a verb+resource pattern. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_document_comment and manage_presentation_comment by explicitly scoping to spreadsheets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The action list with required parameters provides clear guidance on when to use each sub-operation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like list_spreadsheet_comments for read-only comment retrieval. The note about API limitations implies trade-offs but no explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses non-rollback partial failure and duplication risk, preservation of formulas/types/formatting, and 1-based row semantics, all beyond the annotations. The destructiveHint annotation is consistent with the described deleteDimension step, so no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four dense, information-bearing sentences, front-loaded with the action; every sentence contributes essential behavioral context without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers operation mechanics, failure behavior, preservation guarantees, and row numbering. Missing destination placement details (e.g., where moved rows land in destination sheet) is a minor gap, but annotations and output schema cover safety and return context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema handles per-parameter documentation; the description's 1-based/inclusive note partially repeats schema text. It adds no significant new parameter-level details beyond making the row-number convention explicit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly identifies a specific operation (moving rows) with explicit scope (between sheets in the same spreadsheet). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like modify_sheet_values or append_table_rows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States that the operation uses batchUpdate rather than a values round-trip and explicitly contrasts with values.get/append behavior, giving context for when choosing this tool. It does not name alternative tools explicitly or list cases where a different operation should be used, but the purpose is specific enough to imply usage.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing atomicity ('single atomic batch update') and warning about 'index calculation errors' with a phased workflow mitigation. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is longer than average but well-structured with a core statement, a clear alternative reference, and a WORKFLOW section with headings. The example batch is illustrative and earned its place given the tool's complexity. It could be slightly tighter, but overall every section contributes to usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's extensive operation schema and the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers key decision points (when to use this vs. update_doc_headers_footers, how to avoid index pitfalls) without repeating schema details. It doesn't enumerate all operation types, but the schema handles that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the three top-level parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic guidance through concrete examples (e.g., using end_of_segment=true to avoid index math) and clarifies when operation types like create_header_footer should be used. This supplements the schema meaningfully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Executes multiple low-level document operations in a single atomic batch update.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by explicitly stating 'For normal header/footer text, prefer update_doc_headers_footers' and scoping create_header_footer to advanced section-break layouts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit when-to-use guidance with a named alternative: 'prefer update_doc_headers_footers' for normal headers/footers, and 'Only use create_header_footer here for advanced section-break layouts.' The recommended two-phase workflow (insert content with end_of_segment=true, then create headers/footers) gives clear operational 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?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds genuine behavioral context by mentioning shared drive support and the alternative content ingestion methods (text, base64, fileUrl), which are not visible in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no redundant details. Every phrase contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, content source options, and shared drive support. No critical operational details are missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping content, base64_content, and fileUrl as alternative content sources and by reinforcing shared drive folder_id requirements, which is not explicitly stated in the individual schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Creates a new file in Google Drive' and specifies support for shared drives and three content input modes. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_drive_folder (folder vs file) and update_drive_file (create vs update).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: when creating a file with text, base64, or a URL, including in shared drives. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the content-source options imply the intended use cases.
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds useful context by explaining that it requires no index calculation, making it the 'safest way' for targeted updates. It also indicates the replacement happens 'throughout' the document, implying all occurrences. It does not explicitly mention side effects like replacement counts, but this is not required given the output schema exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a lead sentence states the core function, followed by a bulleted list of use cases, and a closing note about an alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place and the length is appropriate for the tool's clarity. It could be slightly tighter, but it remains concise and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the 100% param coverage, the description provides sufficient context for a Google Doc find-and-replace operation. It covers the core behavior, when to use it, and an alternative for building documents from scratch. It does not mention edge cases like what happens if find_text is absent, but the output schema likely conveys that, making the description reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by providing a concrete example: replacing placeholder text like '{{TITLE}}'. This helps an agent understand that find_text can be a template variable and replace_text its substitution, enriching the parameter meaning beyond the schema's simple 'Text to search for' and 'Text to replace with'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Finds and replaces text throughout a Google Doc,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by highlighting 'No index calculation required' and explicitly contrasts with batch_update_doc for building documents. This makes the purpose unmistakable and differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: replacing placeholders, updating specific words/phrases, and making targeted changes without index errors. It also states when not to use it (building documents from scratch) and recommends an alternative approach involving batch_update_doc. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use guidance expected.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context about return shape (string by default, dict when include_analysis=True) and clarifies that the default preserves the existing string return shape, which is beyond annotation data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first clearly states the core purpose, the second explains an optional feature and its benefit. No redundant wording, well-front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description covers the essential aspects: thread retrieval, all messages, optional analysis, and default return shape. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's functionality without ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the include_analysis parameter by explaining the structured ownership analysis (last sender, ball-in-court verdict), which is not fully captured in the schema. It also clarifies body_format behavior via the schema, and the description adds value by describing the default return shape.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves complete Gmail thread content including all messages, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_gmail_message_content by focusing on the whole thread, and mentions optional structured ownership analysis as an added feature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve full thread content) and hints at a reason to prefer it over alternatives: by enabling include_analysis, callers avoid re-parsing or making a second call. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the guidance is useful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description richly details behaviors beyond the annotations: forward mode carries over subject/body/attachments, reply_all derivation rules, attachment inline rendering via content_id, and signature defaults. It also discloses that certain options are ignored in forwarding scenarios. This is far beyond the minimal annotation hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is longer than average but information-dense and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains mode-specific details and parameter behavior. Each sentence adds meaningful context, though the length is slightly high for a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 18 parameters, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description covers all major modes (new, reply, forward) and their specific behaviors. Edge cases like forward attachments, inline content IDs, and signature behavior are addressed. The tool is fully comprehensible without external information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic clarity around parameter interactions (e.g., 'body becomes an optional note prepended to the forward', 'reply_all derives recipients from the thread'), which enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Sends an email using the user's Gmail account.' It clearly enumerates supported capabilities (new emails, replies, forwards, attachments, Send As), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like draft_gmail_message (which creates a draft rather than sending).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear usage context for forward mode ('To forward an existing message, pass forward_message_id') and explains mode-specific behavior (e.g., threading/reply/signature options do not apply when forwarding). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like draft_gmail_message, but the use cases are well implied.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context about how comments are handled (default included, anchor text preserved, comment_mode options) and which formatting elements are preserved. It does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured into three concise paragraphs: purpose, differentiation, and comment behavior. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the read-only nature confirmed by annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's core behavior, differentiation from similar tools, and comment handling. There are no significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect of comment-related parameters, such as the default behavior of including comments and preserving anchor text. This helps the agent understand the purpose of include_comments and comment_mode beyond their schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Reads a Google Doc and returns it as clean Markdown with optional comment context.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from sibling get_doc_content by noting it returns plain text while this preserves formatting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance by contrasting with get_doc_content: 'Unlike get_doc_content which returns plain text, this tool preserves document formatting as Markdown.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over the alternative, and the comment context section clarifies behavior around comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses key behaviors: saving to local disk, temporary URL validity in HTTP mode, and format conversion rules for Google native files. This exceeds what annotations provide and sets clear expectations for side effects and return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear main statement, mode-specific details, and a bulleted list for format conversions. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy, making it concise yet informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fully covers the tool's behavior across modes, file types, and export formats. It explains return values (local path vs URL) and edge cases like native file conversion, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining export format mappings per file type (e.g., Docs to PDF/DOCX, Sheets to XLSX/PDF/CSV). This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema's plain option list.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it downloads a Google Drive file and saves it to local disk, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_drive_file_content or get_drive_shareable_link by focusing on the download behavior and local file access.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context, explaining mode-specific behavior (stdio vs HTTP) and export format options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it obvious when to use this tool for downloading files rather than just reading or sharing them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: 20,000-character truncation, export-to-disk with a short-lived download URL or file path, and stateless inline fallback. These details help the agent anticipate response size and transport behavior, going well beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three tightly written paragraphs: a one-sentence purpose statement, a concise explanation of truncation and full=True behavior, and a short note on stateless deployments. Every sentence contributes new information and is front-loaded with the most important details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the strong annotations, complete input schema with 100% parameter coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all key operational edge cases: truncation, full=True behavior, transport differences, and stateless mode. It is fully sufficient for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself has rich parameter descriptions. The tool description adds extra value by explaining the 20,000-character truncation threshold and the rationale that large messages never stream through model context, which complements the schema's full=True description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Retrieves the full content (subject, sender, recipients, body) of a specific Gmail message,' using a specific verb and clearly identifying the resource and scope. The 'specific' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling batch/thread/attachment tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on when to use full=True (large messages, byte-exact fidelity) and when the default truncated inline body is used. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance but is otherwise clear.
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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by warning about index calculation errors, explaining end_of_segment behavior, and cautioning about ID guessing. It does not detail irreversible side effects, but the annotation covers the core safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact: main purpose in the first sentence, then a useful TIP, then explicit exclusions and warnings. Every sentence provides actionable value, and key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 21 parameters and an output schema, the description effectively covers the essential operational nuances: insertion vs replacement, formatting-only usage, end_of_segment for append, header/footer guidance, and segment ID provenance. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the schema itself documents all parameters. The description adds operational meaning beyond the schema, particularly for end_of_segment ('avoids index calculation errors') and segment_id ('Do not guess IDs'), which helps the agent use parameters correctly. This goes beyond baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Modifies text in a Google Doc') and clearly enumerates the scope: insert/replace text and/or apply formatting in a single operation. It distinguishes itself from likely siblings (e.g., update_doc_headers_footers) by explicitly addressing header/footer use cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives direct guidance on when to use an alternative: 'For ordinary header/footer text, prefer update_doc_headers_footers.' It also provides concrete procedural warnings, such as only passing real segment IDs from inspect_doc_structure and not guessing IDs, plus a practical TIP for appending with end_of_segment=true.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: total_length is the maximum safe insertion index, headers/footers return real segment IDs, and detailed output includes exact start/end indices. It also warns 'Do not invent IDs,' which is valuable operational guidance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but well-structured with clear headings and front-loaded purpose. Every section (USE THIS FOR, OUTPUT SHOWS, workflows) provides operational value, though the step-by-step workflow details make it more verbose than strictly necessary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is thorough: it explains safe insertion indices, output fields, detailed mode, tab behavior, and integration with batch_update_doc and update_doc_headers_footers. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to enumerate return values, making it complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for `detailed` by explaining it returns exact start_index/end_index per paragraph for formatting workflows, and for `tab_id` by noting it lists tabs when omitted. Other parameters are self-explanatory and already covered by the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Essential tool for finding safe insertion points and understanding document structure,' a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly enumerates use cases like locating tables, inspecting tabs, and getting document statistics, which distinguishes it from sibling doc mutation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit 'USE THIS FOR' list and a 'CRITICAL FOR TABLE OPERATIONS' warning to always call before creating tables. It also gives step-by-step workflows for table insertion, formatting, and header/footer editing, and explicitly says to use `update_doc_headers_footers` for ordinary header/footer text instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; description adds that replacing content preserves file ID, sharing, comments, and links, and explains server-side splicing for append/prepend. It also discloses MIME conversion behavior for native formats, which is not evident from schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is about 150 words, front-loaded with the main purpose, then covers content replacement, conversion behavior, and append/prepend. Every sentence contributes a distinct behavioral rule with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 17-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all significant behavioral corners: in-place replacement, conversion semantics, append/prepend behavior, and explicit alternatives for Google-native editing. Combined with thorough schema descriptions, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds group-level meaning by explaining that one of content/file_path/file_url replaces content and that metadata/content can be updated together, but individual parameter details are already in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description begins with 'Updates metadata, properties, and/or content of a Google Drive file' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming import_to_google_doc and recommending insert_doc_elements/modify_doc_text for native Docs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises that append/prepend on native Google Docs should use insert_doc_elements, modify_doc_text, or find_and_replace_doc instead of rewriting. Also describes when content/file_path/file_url apply and how non-Google files are handled, providing clear selection guidance.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/taylorwilsdon/google_workspace_mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server