workspace-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.21.3
- Disambiguation4/5
Tools cover many distinct Google Workspace actions with clear separation. Some slight overlap exists (e.g., get_doc_content vs get_doc_as_markdown) but descriptions clarify differences.
Naming Consistency4/5Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (create_doc, list_calendars). Minor inconsistencies like debug_docs_runtime_info and import_to_google_doc break the pattern slightly.
Tool Count2/5122 tools is excessive for a single server. While covering multiple services, this number overwhelms agents and increases selection difficulty.
Completeness5/5The surface covers nearly all Google Workspace services (Docs, Sheets, Slides, Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Forms, Chat, Contacts, Tasks, Apps Script) with CRUD and lifecycle operations for each.
Average 3.7/5 across 100 of 122 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 214 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if form doesn't exist, permissions needed).
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 extremely concise (3 words) but lacks necessary context to be useful. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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 rich annotations and a full schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., form definition vs. responses) or any additional context needed for effective use.
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 with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Get a form.' clearly states the verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_form_response' or 'get_doc_content'. It essentially restates the name/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, or any contextual exclusions. The description lacks usage direction entirely.
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 show write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but description adds no behavioral traits beyond that. Does not mention rate limits, permissions, or reply behavior despite schema hints in thread_key/thread_name.
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?
Extremely concise (one sentence, 6 words), but at the cost of omitting important context. Adequate for minimal viability but not optimal.
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 an output schema, the description does not mention return values. With 5 parameters and thread options, the description is too brief to cover the tool's complexity.
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 40%; only thread_key and thread_name have descriptions. The tool description does not explain any parameters, failing to compensate for the gap.
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 states 'Sends a message to a Google Chat space' with a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like send_gmail_message by specifying 'Google Chat space', but does not explicitly differentiate further.
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 (e.g., create_reaction, search_messages). No context on prerequisites, when not to use, or best practices.
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 indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open world. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'create', such as authentication needs 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.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is wordy and includes ambiguous language ('provided form message'). It could be more concise and clear, e.g., omitting the confusing phrase.
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 an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it fails to mention that the form is created under the specified user email or that the title and description are direct parameters. The description omits important 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 description adds little value. The confusing mention of 'provided form message' does not align with the schema parameters and reduces clarity.
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 tool as creating a new form, with verb 'create' and resource 'form'. However, the phrase 'using the title given in the provided form message' is confusing and detracts from clarity, as the title is a direct parameter.
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 batch_update_form or get_form. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context for use.
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 indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens with duplicate titles.
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 sentence with no fluff, but it lacks structure and important details. It is appropriately sized but under-informative.
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 complexity (3 params, no output schema shown, sibling tools), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, default behavior for sheet names, or where the spreadsheet is created.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation for high 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 'Creates a new Google Spreadsheet' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_doc or create_sheet, though 'create_sheet' could be ambiguous.
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 create_sheet or create_drive_file. No context for prerequisites or when not to use.
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 indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open world, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the action. It does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or that the reaction is associated with a specific user email parameter.
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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is too minimal. It could be slightly expanded to include basic usage hints without losing conciseness.
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 three required parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return values, error cases, or the need for user authorization. The tool is simple but important details are missing.
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 67% (user_google_email lacks description). The description does not clarify parameter meaning or relationships, nor does it compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 (adds) and the resource (emoji reaction) on a specific target (Google Chat message). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which primarily deal with messaging or document operations.
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 sending messages or other reactions. There is no mention of prerequisites, user authorization, or 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal value by stating it returns a formatted list of accessible spaces, which is expected. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are disclosed.
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 brief (two sentences) but includes a redundant return type line ('Returns: str: ...') that does not add value since an output schema exists. The first sentence is concise and focused. Could be tighter by removing the docstring-style return.
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 rich annotations and an output schema, the description omits critical details about parameter usage (e.g., possible space_type values, effect of page_size). The tool is a list operation, but the description does not clarify filtering or pagination behavior, leaving the agent underinformed.
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?
The input schema has three parameters (user_google_email required, page_size with default 100, space_type with default 'all'), but the description provides no explanation of their meaning or expected values. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate but failed entirely.
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 lists Google Chat spaces (rooms and direct messages) accessible to the user. The verb 'lists' matches the tool name, and the resource 'Google Chat spaces' distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entities like calendars or drive items.
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. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'creating, updating, and deleting deployments'. It does not disclose side effects or permissions needed.
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 short sentences with zero wasted words. Highly concise and front-loaded.
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 6 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description is too brief. It lacks mention of prerequisites, return values, or distinctions from similar 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The general description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. 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 Apps Script deployments and supports creating, updating, and deleting. The verb 'manages' is slightly broad but the second sentence specifies the actions, making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_deployments, so not 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_deployments for listing). The description only states what it does, without specifying context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). Description adds no additional behavioral context beyond listing actions; no mention of side effects, permissions, or response characteristics.
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?
Single sentence front-loads the purpose and actions. No unnecessary words, efficient yet clear enough for the core function.
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?
Despite high schema coverage and existence of output schema, the description lacks any usage context or guidance. However, schema covers parameter dependencies and output, making it minimally 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 covers all 11 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema; baseline score 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?
Description clearly states the tool manages tasks with specific actions (create, update, delete, move). Differentiates from sibling tools like list_tasks and manage_task_list, which handle listing or list-level operations.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Lacks when/when-not criteria, prerequisites, or context for choosing among the four actions.
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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal context beyond 'list all comments', which is consistent but not extensive.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits parameter details and usage context, making it insufficient for an agent unfamiliar with the tool.
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?
The description provides no information about the two required parameters (user_google_email, document_id). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 'List' and the resource 'all comments from a Google Document', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_spreadsheet_comments or list_presentation_comments.
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 like manage_document_comment or the other list comment tools. The description lacks context for decision-making.
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 minimal value beyond annotations. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or response format. Annotations indicate it's not read-only or destructive, but the description provides no additional 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 is appropriately concise at one sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could include more structured information without losing conciseness.
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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how it fits among many sibling create 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding 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 action (Create) and the resource (a new Google Slides presentation). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_doc or create_sheet by specifying 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 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. The description does not mention any context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
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 mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic operation, such as what happens on conflict or duplicate failure.
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 sentence but includes a lengthy function signature that repeats schema information. It could be more concise by omitting the signature.
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 lack of parameter descriptions in schema, the tool description fails to explain parameters or return value (output schema exists but not mentioned). It lacks context for correct usage.
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 needed to compensate. It lists parameter names and types but provides no explanation of their meaning or behavior (e.g., source_sheet_name for duplication, insert_sheet_index for position).
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 creates a new sheet or duplicates an existing one. This distinguishes it from creating a whole spreadsheet (create_spreadsheet) and other sheet manipulation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when to create a new sheet vs duplicate, or prerequisites like spreadsheet existence or user access.
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 fully cover the behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'Retrieves messages from a Google Chat space,' which is consistent and clarifies the scope but does not introduce new behavioral information 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is very brief. While there is no wasted text, it is too short to provide necessary context for a tool with 5 parameters. A bit more structure (e.g., listing key parameters or usage) would improve it.
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 number of parameters, siblings, and the existence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention pagination (page_size), ordering (order_by), or filtering capabilities, which are important for correct invocation. The output schema may cover return values, but the description lacks essential context for selection and use.
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 only 20% (only 'message_filter' has a description). The tool description itself does not describe any parameter semantics, leaving most parameters (user_google_email, space_id, page_size, order_by) undocumentated in both the description and schema. The description fails to 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 clearly states 'Retrieves messages from a Google Chat space.' The verb 'retrieves' is specific, and the resource 'messages from a Google Chat space' distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_messages' (which searches across spaces) and 'list_spaces' (which lists spaces).
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 that this is for retrieving messages from a specific space (requiring space_id) or when to prefer 'search_messages' for broader queries. No suggestions or exclusions 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=true and destructiveHint=false, making the read-only nature clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but there is 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could include more information without becoming verbose, so it is good but not perfect.
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 pagination parameters (page_size, page_token) and an output schema, the description should mention pagination or the response format. It is incomplete as it only states the basic function, leaving important usage details 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?
All parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of their meaning. The tool description does not add any extra semantic value beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for 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 clearly states it lists a form's responses, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_form_response' which retrieves a single response, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.
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_form_response' for single responses or other listing tools. The description lacks any contextual cues for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context about irreversibility of delete, notification impacts, or RSVP semantics. It is adequate 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that concisely conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded but could benefit from a slightly more structured breakdown per action.
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 complexity (25 parameters, multiple actions, destructive behavior), the description is too minimal. It lacks guidance on which parameters are required for each action, and does not explain return values despite the presence of an 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions, 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool manages calendar events and enumerates the supported actions (creating, updating, deleting, RSVP). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_events (read-only) or manage_focus_time.
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 specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions for each 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 indicate it modifies data (readOnlyHint false) but destructiveHint false. Description adds context about cell-scoped comments via Drive API limitation, which is valuable beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior like threading for replies or the effect of resolving a comment.
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?
Description is structured with action bullet points and a brief note. It is concise and front-loaded with purpose. The note adds valuable context without excessive 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?
Critical missing detail: how to specify which cell the comment attaches to. Description notes comments are cell-scoped but provides no parameter for cell location. With output schema present, return values are not required, but input parameters are incomplete for meaningful use.
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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the action parameter and conditional param requirements (comment_content for create/reply, comment_id for reply/resolve). But user_google_email, spreadsheet_id, and comment_id are not explained; user may not know how to obtain comment_id.
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 clearly states the tool manages comments on Google Spreadsheets and lists three specific actions (create, reply, resolve). It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_document_comment by specifying 'Spreadsheet'. However, the verb 'manage' is generic and could be more specific.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_document_comment or manage_presentation_comment. The description lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or comparisons to sibling 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 indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what side effects occur, authentication needs, rate limits). It does not contradict annotations, but fails to elaborate on the destructive nature beyond what's in structured 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?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with core action. However, could benefit from additional details (e.g., return value, destructive warning) without becoming verbose. Score reflects efficient but slightly under-informative structure.
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 destructive nature (annotations) and complexity (5 params, required fields), the description is insufficient. It should explain return values, error handling, or caution about execution side effects. Output schema exists but description doesn't even mention response format.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema fully documents 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 'Executes a function in a deployed script' clearly states the verb 'executes' and the resource 'function in a deployed script'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_script_content' and 'manage_deployment' which handle different aspects of script management.
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 vs alternatives. Lacks prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or comparison with similar tools like 'generate_trigger_code' or 'manage_deployment'. The description provides no context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond these annotations. It does not mention potential issues like API key requirements or rate limits, 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it very concise. However, it is too brief and could benefit from a brief usage context or additional sentences to improve value. It is efficient but does not fully earn its place.
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 a rich schema and annotations, the description fails to provide context for a complex tool with 13 parameters. It does not explain the output schema, prerequisites (like setting up a custom search engine), or how this tool fits into workflows. The description is incomplete for the complexity involved.
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, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 performs a search using the Google Custom Search JSON API. It specifies the verb (performs) and resource (search using Google Custom Search JSON API), making the purpose clear. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling search tools like search_docs or search_drive_files, which could cause confusion about which search to use.
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 prerequisites (e.g., having a custom search engine configured), limitations, or when not to use it. The description offers no context for selection among sibling 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 indicate not read-only, not destructive, and not idempotent. The description adds no further behavioral disclosure beyond 'updates', which is consistent with annotations. No additional context about side effects or state changes.
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 concise with a single sentence. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without losing brevity.
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 presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required booleans), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'publish settings' entails, the effects of parameters like publish_as_template or require_authentication, or how this tool relates to batch_update_form.
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 describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning. 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 verb 'updates' and the resource 'publish settings of a form', distinguishing it from other form-related sibling tools like get_form or batch_update_form. However, it does not elaborate on what specific settings are updated.
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 batch_update_form, nor any prerequisites or conditions for usage.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations—e.g., it does not mention that 'details' may include slide notes, elements, or layout, nor does it disclose any rate limits or authentication 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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness, such as hinting at what 'details' includes.
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 an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool has three required parameters and no nested objects, yet the description omits any context about the relationship between pages and presentations or how to identify a specific page. It is minimally adequate but not richly informative.
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 input schema fully describes all three parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; for instance, it does not explain how to obtain the page_object_id or the user_google_email. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details about a specific page (slide) in a presentation.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_presentation (which gets the full presentation) and get_page_thumbnail (which gets a thumbnail image), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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_presentation or list_presentation_comments. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or situations where other tools 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 merely repeats the intended action. The annotations already fully declare the behavioral traits (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), so the description adds no extra value.
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 that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It could be slightly more informative but is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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 adequate for a basic list operation with well-documented parameters and an output schema. However, it omits mentioning pagination or max_results limit, though those are covered 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 the description does not need to add parameter details. The description does not enhance understanding 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 'List all task lists for the user' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like 'list_tasks' and 'manage_task_list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. The description is a simple statement with no context about 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, confirming mutation. However, the description merely lists actions without disclosing side effects, error conditions, or behavioral nuances 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 sentence that front-loads the key actions. Every word is essential, with no wasted text.
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 9 parameters, 3 required, and multiple actions, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain the overall workflow, parameter relationships, or how to use the tool effectively, leaving significant 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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional per-parameter meaning beyond the overview, meeting the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Manage' and the resource 'document tabs', listing the specific actions (create, rename, delete, populate from Markdown). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_doc_structure 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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The parameter description for tab_id mentions using inspect_doc_structure to find IDs, providing a cross-reference, but overall the description lacks context on when to choose this tool over alternatives.
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. The description adds that it 'manages' properties, implying mutation, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., data shifting on insert/delete). 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence listing all operations; concise and front-loaded. No unnecessary words, though could be structured as a list for clarity.
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 20 parameters and an output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of all operations. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose without needing to read 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description only lists categories (e.g., 'resize columns/rows') without adding meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 the tool manages sheet-level dimension properties and lists key actions (resize, auto-resize, freeze, hide/unhide, insert/delete). This clearly indicates the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like format_sheet_range or move_sheet_rows.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools, it would benefit from statements like 'Use this for dimension changes; for formatting, use format_sheet_range instead.'
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 not idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the action. 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no unnecessary words. However, it could be expanded with minimal extra context without harming conciseness.
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 complexity of batch updates (arbitrary requests array, destructive operation), the description is too minimal. It lacks context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or what the output contains, despite having an 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?
Schema description covers all 3 parameters (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra semantic meaning to the parameters 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 action (apply batch updates) and the resource (Google Slides presentation), distinguishing it from siblings like batch_update_doc (for documents) and batch_update_form (for forms).
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_doc or update_drive_file. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds no behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent. Description merely restates 'creates', missing context like required scopes or effect on Drive.
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?
Single sentence, to the point, no redundant information. Every word contributes to the purpose.
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?
Has output schema (not provided) and schema covers params, but description lacks context on return value or behavior in edge cases (e.g., invalid parent_id). Adequate for a simple creation tool but could be more 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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description offers no additional parameter insight beyond the schema, so 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?
Description clearly states it creates a new Apps Script project, with a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('App Script project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_doc and create_sheet by focusing on script projects.
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 vs alternatives (e.g., create_doc for documents). Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention possible edge cases like file not found or permission requirements, which are important for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and 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?
For a simple get operation with existing annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on prerequisites or error scenarios. It could be more helpful by mentioning that the file must be accessible or that the link format is standard.
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 clear parameter definitions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 it gets the shareable link for a Google Drive file or folder, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_drive_file_download_url and get_drive_file_permissions.
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, or any prerequisites. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, authentication details, or side effects). It merely restates the obvious, failing to add 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence (6 words). No waste, but it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness. Front-loaded with the key action.
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, existence of output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could explicitly mention that it retrieves the full presentation object (slides, metadata) to enhance 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% (both parameters have clear descriptions). The tool description does not add additional meaning or context for parameters, but it does not detract. 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 action (get) and resource (details about a Google Slides presentation). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_update_presentation (update) and get_page (specific page).
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 (e.g., get_page, list_presentation_comments). Lack of context or exclusion criteria limits an agent's ability to choose correctly among siblings.
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 openWorldHint=true. The description only restates that it 'inserts', adding no behavioral details like shift of existing content or potential failure modes.
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, 12-word sentence with no unnecessary words, perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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?
While the description covers basic purpose and there is an output schema, it omits important context such as prerequisites (e.g., edit permissions), error conditions (e.g., invalid index), or side effects, making it minimally 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%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the verb ('inserts'), the resource ('structural elements like tables, lists, or page breaks'), and the target ('Google Doc'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools such as modify_doc_text 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_update_doc or insert_doc_image, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns a formatted list, but does not elaborate on formatting details, pagination, or limits. Some value added 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?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient for its content.
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 0% schema coverage and 3 parameters, the description is insufficient. It omits details on paging, folder scope, and what 'formatted list' entails, despite having an output schema.
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% with no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain any parameter (e.g., user_google_email, folder_id, page_size), failing to compensate for the lack of schema detail.
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 Google Docs within a specific Drive folder, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_drive_items or search_docs by focusing on docs in a folder.
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 (e.g., list_drive_items) or when not to use it. The description lacks exclusions or 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?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, indicating the tool modifies state. The description adds that it supports adding, updating, and deleting, which aligns. No additional behavioral details are given about side effects or prerequisites, but annotations cover the destructive nature 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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds the supported actions. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 (11 parameters, multiple actions) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic operations but lacks details on rule interactions, ordering, or outcomes. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It simply reiterates the operations without enriching 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 tool manages conditional formatting rules on Google Sheets and lists the three supported actions (add, update, delete). It is specific and includes the resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like format_sheet_range, which could also apply formatting.
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. No when-not or when-to-use context is provided. Siblings like format_sheet_range exist, and the lack of distinction reduces clarity for the agent.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and side-effect profile. The description adds no new behavioral context (e.g., scope of search, pagination behavior), making it adequate but not enhanced 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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a simple input schema (3 params) and output schema present, the description is minimal but sufficient. It does not explain output details, but the output schema likely handles that. Lacks any mention of limitations or prerequisites beyond 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 coverage is 100%, so the description's mention of fields ('name, email, phone number, or other fields') adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema's 'query' parameter description already provides. 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 tool searches contacts by specified fields (name, email, phone, other), which is specific and informative. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' or 'get_contact', missing an opportunity to clarify distinct 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_contacts for all contacts, get_contact for a single record). The description implies search functionality but lacks exclusions or context-aware recommendations.
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 non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the shared drive capability but omits other behaviors like permission requirements 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action. It is efficient but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks details such as default behavior, error conditions, or permission requirements, which would enhance completeness for a simple creation 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully described there. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the 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 clearly states the tool creates a new folder in Google Drive and highlights support for shared drives, distinguishing it from generic file creation tools like 'create_drive_file'.
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 (e.g., 'create_drive_file' for files), nor when not to use it. Lacks context about prerequisites or conditions.
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 non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, permission details). It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not add value beyond 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, clear sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise 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 existence of an output schema and strong annotations, the description is sufficient for a simple read operation. However, it could mention that the response is retrieved by its ID, which is implied by the parameter name but not explicitly stated in the 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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no new information about 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'one response from the form,' distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'list_form_responses' which retrieves multiple responses. However, it does not elaborate on what a response contains, which could add clarity.
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 siblings like 'list_form_responses'. It does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. Description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication requirements, rate limits, or how thumbnails are generated).
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?
Single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. No 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?
With output schema assumed to cover return values and annotations providing behavioral hints, the description is mostly complete. Could hint at the generated nature of the thumbnail, but overall 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 action ('Generate'), the resource ('thumbnail URL'), and the context ('for a specific page (slide) in a presentation'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_page' by specifying thumbnail generation.
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 (e.g., 'get_page' for page content). No mention of prerequisites or 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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., permissions needed, output format). Given the comprehensive annotations, a 3 reflects acceptable 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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise.
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 retrieval tool, the description combined with the input schema, output schema (presumed present), and annotations provides sufficient context. It does not include potential size limits or error conditions, but these are not critical 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not add extra meaning beyond the parameter names and descriptions already present. Hence 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 action (retrieves content) and the resource (specific file within a project). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_script_project or get_doc_content, but could be more explicit about the file type (e.g., script file).
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 prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent has no context about scenarios where this tool is preferred over similar read 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 description repeats the basic functionality but adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already convey (e.g., readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It fails to disclose side effects, authorization needs, or constraints like image format or access restrictions.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. While it could include more structure or additional context, it is not overly verbose and communicates the core purpose efficiently.
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 an output schema and full coverage of parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by mentioning whether the image is embedded or linked, or any size limitations, which would help the agent use 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?
With 100% schema coverage, the parameter descriptions in the schema are already sufficient. The tool description does not add additional meaning or context to the parameters, 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 action (inserts), the target resource (image into a Google Doc), and the source (from Drive or a URL), making it unambiguous and distinguishing it from related tools like insert_doc_elements.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, caveats, or when not to use it. It is clear but lacks decision-support 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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, providing strong behavioral transparency. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., it does not mention that system labels are included or that the output is an array). Thus, the description adds minimal 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?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, perfectly front-loaded and efficient. Every word is necessary.
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 (simple list operation, one parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention that it retrieves all labels (including system labels) or indicate that the output is an array of label objects, but the output schema likely 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% with one parameter ('user_google_email') already described in the schema as 'The user's Google email address. Required.' The description does not add further meaning, so it meets the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'lists' and the resource 'labels in the user's Gmail account', making it highly specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_gmail_filters' and 'manage_gmail_label' by focusing on listing all labels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'manage_gmail_label' for modifying labels or 'search_gmail_messages' for messages. The description lacks context for usage decisions.
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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little beyond stating 'List all comments', which aligns with these hints. The description does not elaborate on behavioral specifics such as pagination or rate limits, but given the annotations, the bar is lower.
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 communicates the tool's purpose. No wasted words or redundant 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?
Given the rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not clarify whether comments are from all slides or just top-level, nor does it mention any scope limitations. It is acceptable but not fully complete for a list tool.
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 input schema has two required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what user_google_email or presentation_id represent, nor how to obtain them. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.
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 'List', the resource 'comments', and the scope 'from a Google Presentation'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_document_comments and list_spreadsheet_comments, which target different document types.
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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_document_comments or manage_presentation_comment. There is no mention of prerequisites, 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'list all'. It does not detail pagination, rate limits, or scope of comments (e.g., across all sheets).
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-formed sentence that conveys the core functionality without any extraneous information. 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?
While an output schema exists (so return structure is defined elsewhere), the description does not outline what 'comments' includes (e.g., author, text, timestamp). It also lacks context on whether the list is limited to the user's comments or all comments on the spreadsheet, which could affect interpretation.
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%, meaning the input schema lacks parameter descriptions. The tool description does not elaborate on the purpose or format of 'user_google_email' or 'spreadsheet_id'. For instance, 'user_google_email' might be ambiguous (is it the authenticated user's email?), and this gap forces the agent to infer or hardcode.
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 ('List'), the resource ('comments'), and the scope ('from a Google Spreadsheet'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'manage_spreadsheet_comment' (which modifies comments) and 'list_document_comments' (which targets documents).
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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'manage_spreadsheet_comment' for modifications), prerequisites, or scenarios where it should be avoided. The description is purely declarative.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds only 'that the user has access to', which implies authentication-based scope. This is minimal additional context; the description does not elaborate on pagination, order, or response structure. 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 12 words, conveying the essential action without any unnecessary wording. It is optimally concise.
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, annotations are rich, and an output schema exists (as indicated by context signals). The description, while brief, covers the basic purpose. It could mention that it returns metadata, but the output schema likely handles that. For a straightforward list tool, this is 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 has 100% coverage for its two parameters. The description does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('spreadsheets from Google Drive'). It is specific about what the tool does, though it does not differentiate from similar list tools among siblings (e.g., list_docs, list_calendars). The verb+resource combination is straightforward.
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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_drive_items' or 'search_drive_files'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions. The agent receives no direction on choosing this tool over 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that operations can be applied in a single call but does not provide additional behavioral context (e.g., index validity, error handling). 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 sentences, front-loading the core purpose, with no wasted words. Every sentence 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?
Given the tool has 25 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the main capabilities (heading styles, lists, formatting). It does not need to enumerate all parameters as schema covers them.
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 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds high-level context but does not add meaning beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.
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 verb 'apply' and the resource 'paragraph-level formatting, heading styles, and/or list formatting'. It is specific about the tool's function but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like modify_doc_text or insert_doc_elements.
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 comparison to similar tools such as modify_doc_text.
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 destructiveHint=true; the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, rate limits, or prerequisites), leaving the agent with minimal insight 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?
Single sentence, 12 words, front-loaded, and concise 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 full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is adequate but lacks details on error handling per message or prerequisites like label existence, 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by confirming the batch nature but does not clarify edge cases like both add and remove in one call or the requirement for label IDs to exist.
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 verb ('adds or removes'), the resource ('labels from multiple Gmail messages'), and the scope ('batch request'), clearly distinguishing it from single-message alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies batch usage but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'modify_gmail_message_labels' for single messages, nor does it provide 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?
Description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive nature; description confirms creation of secondary calendar but doesn't disclose permissions, side effects, or handling of duplicates.
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?
Single sentence, six words, no filler. Efficiently conveys core purpose.
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 output schema present, description need only explain return values minimally. However, lacks details such as the meaning of 'secondary' or required permissions, which would aid 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 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline score 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?
Description clearly states the tool creates a 'new secondary Google Calendar', using specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_doc or create_drive_file.
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 like manage_event or list_calendars. Lacks context such as 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'get detailed information', which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no wasted words.
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 annotations covering behavior, the description is fairly complete for a simple getter. It does not mention error conditions or the need for both parameters, but the 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% with both parameters described. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so 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 verb 'get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific contact', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_contacts' and 'search_contacts'.
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 'list_contacts' or 'search_contacts'. Context signals and sibling tools suggest many contact-related tools, but the description lacks explicit usage 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the optional ownership analysis and explains the body_format parameter's behavior. 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loading the main action. It is concise but could be slightly more structured; however, it efficiently conveys the core functionality and optional 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 a full output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It explains the optional analysis and body format options, though it could be more explicit about the default return type (string vs dict).
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 all parameters. The description adds extra context for include_analysis by mentioning its purpose and benefit, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides. 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 it retrieves complete thread content with all messages and optionally provides ownership analysis. However, it does not explicitly specify that it is for a single thread, which could be inferred from the parameter but not stated; this lack of specificity slightly reduces clarity given siblings like get_gmail_threads_content_batch.
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 (e.g., batch tools, single message retrieval). It hints at the analysis feature as a benefit but does not explicitly state when to choose this over other tools 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide, missing opportunities to explain scope or limitations.
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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words.
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, annotations, and a simple parameter, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. It could mention that it lists all calendars without filtering, but it is complete enough.
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 one required parameter fully described. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter 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 verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'list of calendars'. It distinguishes list_calendars from sibling tools like create_calendar and get_events by focusing on listing existing calendars.
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 context ('accessible to the authenticated user') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only noting that results are 'recent' without defining recency, pagination, or ordering. Given the strong annotation coverage, 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 front-loads the essential information. No unnecessary words or fluff; every word contributes to understanding.
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?
While the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain what an 'execution process' entails or what fields are returned. It also omits the necessity of the user_google_email parameter, though the schema makes that clear. The description is minimally complete but lacks explanatory depth.
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 three parameters. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 'Lists', the resource 'execution processes', and the scope 'for user's scripts' with a qualifier 'recent'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as list_script_projects or get_script_content.
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 prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the function without offering context for when it is appropriate to use over other listing 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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context about versions being immutable snapshots, which is helpful but not essential. No contradictory information.
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 fluff. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value.
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 simplicity of the tool (list all versions), the description is complete. Input schema covers both required params, and output schema exists. No additional context needed for effective use.
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 has 100% description coverage for parameters ('User's email address', 'The script project ID'), so the description does not need to add more. It provides no additional semantics 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 tool lists all versions of a script project and explains what versions are (immutable snapshots). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_version' (specific version) and 'create_version' (creation), though not explicitly contrasting.
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 like 'get_version' or when not to use it. The description lacks context about typical use cases 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. The description aligns by mentioning 'modify' and 'clear', but adds no new behavioral details beyond what annotations provide (e.g., no mention of permissions, formula impact, 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 a single concise sentence (17 words) that front-loads the main action. No redundant or unnecessary text.
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 covers the basic purpose but lacks important context for a multi-mode tool, such as how values and clear_values interact (e.g., omit values when clearing). Given the output schema exists, return values are likely covered elsewhere, but the description could be more helpful for 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning about parameters; the schema already describes each parameter adequately.
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 modifies values in a Google Sheet range, listing specific operations: write, update, or clear. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like read_sheet_values (read-only) and append_table_rows (append mode).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., append_table_rows for appending). The agent must infer from sibling names, which is insufficient for a tool with many siblings and multiple modes (write vs 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it searches by name and checks public access, but does not clarify edge cases (e.g., multiple matches, file not found). It provides some behavioral context beyond annotations, but not comprehensively.
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 immediately states the core purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. Every part is 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?
Complexity is low with 3 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the essential purpose and relies on the schema for parameter details. It could mention search behavior (e.g., exact match, scope) but for a simple check tool, it is nearly complete given the annotations and 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 each parameter adequately described (user_google_email as required, file_name as the name, drive_id with a detailed explanation). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, 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's action: 'Searches for a file by name and checks if it has public link sharing enabled.' It identifies the specific verb (searches, checks), resource (drive file), and outcome (public access status). This differentiates it 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives. It does not mention when to use this tool over get_drive_file_permissions or other sibling tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns specific analytics data (active users, executions, failures), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior like pagination, rate limits, or what happens if the script has no metrics.
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 that front-load the purpose. No unnecessary words. Every sentence 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?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains what data is returned. It could mention that metrics are time-bounded or that a script project must exist, but overall it covers the essentials.
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 described. The description mentions the output but does not add additional meaning to the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the work.
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 ('Gets'), resource ('execution metrics for a script project'), and specifies the returned data (active users, total executions, failed executions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are either for other types of data or script management.
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. For a tool that retrieves metrics, it should mention that it complements run_script_function or is used after script execution, but nothing is 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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which the description ('retrieves metadata') aligns with. The description adds no new behavioral traits beyond what the annotations convey, but 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, and no superfluous information is present.
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 (one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description is largely complete. It could briefly mention that the email must belong to the user owning the search engine, but that is already implied by 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 for the single parameter (user_google_email) is 100%, and its description is clear. The tool description does not add further meaning or context to the parameter, maintaining the baseline score.
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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('metadata about a Programmable Search Engine'), clearly stating the tool's sole function. No sibling tool has an overlapping purpose, so no confusion arises.
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 when-not-to scenarios, and no mention of prerequisites. For a tool with many siblings, explicit usage context is missing.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which fully convey that this is a safe, non-destructive, and idempotent operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., success/failure conditions, throttling, or effect on underlying data). Given the declarations, the description's minimalism is acceptable but adds no extra 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 sentence of six words, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word is essential.
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 operation on a specific task, the description together with the schema and annotations provides a complete picture. The output schema (not shown but exists) would detail the returned fields. The only minor gap is no mention of error conditions (e.g., task not found), but the overall context is sufficient for correct agent 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (user_google_email, task_list_id, task_id), each with clear explanations. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 is precise: 'Get details of a specific task.' It clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (details of a task), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tasks (which lists multiple tasks) and manage_task (which modifies tasks).
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 list_tasks, get_task_list, or manage_task. No explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. For a tool that is one of many task-related tools, this omission reduces its usability.
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, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral details beyond stating 'Get details', which is consistent. No contradiction, but no added 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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action.
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 (2 required params, output schema present, full annotations), the description is mostly complete for a read operation. Could mention return type but output schema handles 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is 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 is clear and specific: 'Get details of a specific task list.' It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (task list details), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_task_lists and get_task.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, 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.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety and behavioral profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what happens if version doesn't exist), but 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. No extraneous words; every part 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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, open world), the presence of an output schema, and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally sufficient. It could be enhanced by noting that it complements list_versions, but it is complete enough for a simple getter.
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% (all three parameters are described in the schema). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 states 'Gets details of a specific version,' which clearly specifies the verb (gets) and resource (version details). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_versions (which lists all versions) and create_version (which creates a version).
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used after listing versions to get full details, nor does it warn that it requires the specific version number.
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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as pagination behavior or rate limits, but the annotations sufficiently cover safety.
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, efficiently conveying 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?
Given the schema covers parameters fully and an output schema exists, the description is sufficient for a simple list operation. Minor improvement could mention pagination or sorting, but not essential.
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 does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, but the schema itself is clear.
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 'List' and the resource 'contacts for the authenticated user', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_contact' (single) and 'search_contacts' (filtered search).
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 usage guidance is provided; the description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_contacts' or 'get_contact', nor does it state prerequisites or disclaimers.
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?
Description adds context about auto-decline and DND behavior beyond annotations (which mark it destructive). However, it doesn't mention deletion implications or that actions like update/delete require event_id.
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 information. Every word 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?
Description covers the essential behavior, and combined with rich schema and output schema, provides a complete picture. Minor gap: does not mention list expansion of recurring series, but schema covers 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?
Schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what is already in 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?
Clearly states it manages Focus Time events on Google Calendar and explains their special behavior (auto-decline, DND), differentiating from regular calendar events and 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., manage_event or manage_out_of_office). The description only defines what Focus Time is, not usage 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 destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the tool's mutating and potentially destructive nature is known. The description adds that it supports creating and deleting, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or other behavioral details. It is sufficient but not enhanced.
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, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose and operations. 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 presence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description is adequately complete for most use cases. It lacks implicit guidance on parameter dependencies (e.g., criteria required for create), but the schema clarifies these explicitly.
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% and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond restating actions. Baseline 3 applies as schema carries the semantic load.
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 it manages Gmail filters and explicitly supports creating and deleting, clearly distinguishing from read-only sibling tools like list_gmail_filters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other filter-related tools, leaving slight ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It indicates that the tool is for creating or deleting filters, which provides basic when-to-use guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so guidance is minimal.
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. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as side effects, rate limits, or required permissions. It merely confirms the actions, offering minimal added 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key details like required relations (e.g., label_id for update/delete) without becoming verbose.
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 (6 parameters, CRUD operations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but brief. It does not explain return values or link parameters to actions, relying on schema descriptions. Some gaps remain, such as not clarifying that label_id is required for update/delete.
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 input schema already describes each parameter in detail. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing the actions, which is already clear from the 'action' parameter's enum.
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: 'Manages Gmail labels: create, update, or delete labels.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (Gmail labels), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_gmail_labels and modify_gmail_message_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 implies when to use the tool (for CRUD on labels) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_gmail_labels for reading or modify_gmail_message_labels for labeling messages. No usage heuristics 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 indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description confirms destructive actions like 'delete' and 'clear_completed', but adds no new behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (e.g., permission requirements or irreversible 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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality.
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 (4 actions with conditional parameter requirements), the description lacks critical execution context. It does not explain that task_list_id is required for update/delete/clear_completed, nor that title is needed for create/update. This omission hampers correct invocation despite having an 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description only lists action values, which are also included in the schema description. It does not clarify which parameters are required for each action, leaving that to 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 function with a specific verb 'Manage' and resource 'task lists', listing all four possible actions (create, update, delete, clear_completed). This distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like 'get_task_list' and 'list_task_lists', and from 'manage_task' which handles individual tasks.
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 implicitly conveys usage for mutating task lists, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for reading, use 'get_task_list'). No guidance is given on prerequisites or when actions are 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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it queries 'a set of calendars', which is consistent but does not elaborate on the output or any constraints. Since annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description meets minimum adequacy.
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 that communicates the core functionality immediately. No unnecessary words 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?
Given the presence of a complete output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description is sufficient. It could optionally mention that it returns busy intervals for the specified time range, but the schema covers the expected output structure.
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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional 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 clearly states the verb 'returns' and the resource 'free/busy information for a set of calendars'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_events (which returns event details) and list_calendars (which lists calendar metadata).
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 get_events. It does not mention any prerequisites or scenarios where query_freebusy is preferred.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. Description adds no extra behavioral context, but does not contradict annotations. With annotations present, a score of 3 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?
Description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded. No unnecessary words. Every word is meaningful.
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 (6 parameters, all documented), output schema exists (though not shown), and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient but could briefly mention optional features (hyperlinks, notes, formulas) for completeness. Still, it adequately covers the core 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. 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?
Description clearly states it reads values from a specific range in a Google Sheet. The verb 'Reads' and resource 'values from a specific range' are specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like modify_sheet_values (write) or get_spreadsheet_info (metadata).
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 (e.g., get_spreadsheet_info, format_sheet_range). No mention of prerequisites or context. The description is too brief to help an agent decide when to invoke 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 declare destructiveHint=true, so description's 'updates or creates' implies potential overwrites, but adds no additional behavioral context beyond annotations. 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?
Single sentence, no filler, perfectly concise and front-loaded with action.
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 output schema present and annotations covering safety, description is mostly sufficient. Could hint at idempotency or side effects, but overall adequate for a mutation tool with good 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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; 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?
Description clearly states it updates or creates files in a script project. Verb 'updates or creates' paired with resource 'files in a script project' is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_script_content (read) and create_script_project (create project).
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 vs alternatives. Does not mention when to prefer get_script_content first, or that it can create new files in existing projects, or any prerequisites like script_id existence.
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 the tool is non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and openWorld. The description adds that rows are appended to the end and the table range auto-extends. This adds some behavioral context, but no details about limits, permissions, or side effects 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 two sentences plus a single directive. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, clarifying the automatic extension, and providing a usage hint. No wasted words, and front-loaded with the core functionality.
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 low complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers what the tool does, the required parameters, and a prerequisite step. However, it omits potential error cases or limits (e.g., max rows), which would be useful for a complete picture.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining that rows are added to the end of the table body, auto-extending the range, and specifying that `table_id` should come from `list_sheet_tables`. This aids understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 verb 'appends rows to a structured table' and the resource (Google Sheet table). It mentions automatic extension of the table range, which distinguishes behavior from similar tools like modify_sheet_values, but does not explicitly differentiate from create_table_with_data or other 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 provides a prerequisite ('Use list_sheet_tables first to find the table ID'), which gives context for when to use the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or compare with alternatives like modify_sheet_values, leaving room for potential misuse.
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 a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that the tool saves to Google Drive, but omits details on behavior if the file already exists, required permissions, or error conditions. With annotations present, the description provides minimal additional 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 is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing steps). Overall, it is appropriately concise.
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 (not shown but indicated) and the parameters are fully described in the schema, the description is sufficient for basic usage. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., non-existent doc), preventing a perfect score.
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 four parameters, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, which is adequate but does not exceed the 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 clearly states the verb 'exports', the resource 'Google Doc', the output format 'PDF', and the destination 'saves to Google Drive'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying a unique conversion and save operation not covered by other sibling tools.
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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it suggest alternatives. The purpose is clear, but no usage boundaries or exclusions are given, 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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description 'Get details' aligns with these but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a baseline 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, clear sentence with no redundant words. Every word adds value, 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 low complexity (3 parameters, all described, output schema exists) and the presence of comprehensive annotations, the description adequately completes the picture. The output schema and annotations fill in any remaining 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% – all three parameters (user_google_email, group_id, max_members) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or clarification beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'contact group' with the scope 'including its members'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_contact' (gets a single contact) and 'list_contact_groups' (lists groups without 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving agents to infer from sibling names alone.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and predictability. The description does not add any behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, but does not contradict them either.
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 that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more 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, low parameter count, and presence of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate. It does not explain pagination or output format, but those are handled by the schema and the tool's natural behavior.
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, clearly documenting each parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'contact groups (labels)', which is specific. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'get_contact_group' (single) and 'list_contacts' (contacts).
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, for a simple list tool, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage. No exclusions or contexts 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=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as pagination details or that results may change (already implied by openWorldHint). 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?
Single sentence, no fluff. All words are necessary. Perfectly concise for the core purpose.
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?
While the description is clear for a basic list operation, it does not mention the available filtering capabilities (by completion, due date, etc.) or pagination, which are significant for effective use. The output schema exists but the description could better summarize the tool's capabilities.
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 parameters have descriptions. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific information, meeting 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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('tasks'), and specifies the scope ('in a specific task list'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_task' (single task) and 'list_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 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 tool versus alternatives such as 'get_task' for a single task or other filtered search tools. The description implies the need for a task list ID but does not provide context beyond that.
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, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description confirms the read-only search behavior and adds that it searches shared drives, which is consistent. No contradictions, but little added 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?
The description is one concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, many optional) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient. It does not explain pagination or typical use beyond the schema. An average score because the schema carries most of the burden.
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 no parameter information beyond the schema, but the schema's parameter descriptions are very detailed including examples and notes. Thus, 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 verb 'Searches', the resource 'files and folders within a user's Google Drive', and the scope 'including shared drives'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_docs' which likely focus on a specific document type, or 'list_drive_items' which may not support query strings.
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 does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives. The input schema includes detailed notes on search behavior, but the description itself lacks usage context. A 3 is appropriate as the schema partially compensates.
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, so the description's 'Searches' is consistent. However, it adds only the filtering context (text and time) without discussing pagination, cross-space behavior, or any side effects. 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, front-loaded sentence of 14 words. Every word is essential; no fluff 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?
Given the presence of an output schema and high schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate but lacks mention of search scope (e.g., all spaces vs. specific) or how the 'max_spaces' parameter affects behavior. Could be more complete for a search 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 83%, so the input schema already documents most parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what's in the schema. 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 verb 'Searches', the resource 'messages in Google Chat spaces', and the criteria 'by text content and/or time range'. It differentiates from siblings like 'get_messages' (retrieval by ID) and 'search_gmail_messages' (Gmail). No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the description indicates the tool is for searching messages in Google Chat, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_messages', 'search_gmail_messages'). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios to avoid.
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 destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds explicit emphasis on permanence ('permanently deletes', 'cannot be undone'), providing useful behavioral context 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?
Two concise sentences, no wasted words. The critical information (what it does, permanence, irreversibility) is front-loaded and 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 deletion tool with two well-documented parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the essential points. It does not mention the return value, but an output schema exists. Slight room for improvement but 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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents them adequately.
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 ('Deletes') and the resource ('an Apps Script project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., create, list, get) which perform different operations.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or suggest any alternative tools for non-destructive 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 indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description aligns with 'Creates a draft' but adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. 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?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence 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?
Given the output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, the description covers the main purpose and key features. It is slightly brief for a 15-parameter tool, but sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.
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 baseline 3. The description adds high-level context (e.g., 'with optional attachments', 'Send As feature') but does not detail individual parameters. 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 it creates a draft email in Gmail, supports new and reply drafts with attachments, and mentions the Send As feature. It is distinct from siblings like 'send_gmail_message' which sends immediately.
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 drafting emails but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., send_gmail_message for sending). No exclusions or 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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that source files are included, but otherwise does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.
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 is front-loaded and conveys the essential purpose 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, full schema coverage, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It could potentially mention that it returns project metadata along with source files, but overall it is complete enough 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% for both parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, so 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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'complete project details including all source files'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_script_content' (only content) and 'list_script_projects' (only list).
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 retrieving full project details, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like 'get_script_content' or 'list_script_projects'. 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 and idempotentHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning sheets. 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?
Description is a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.
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 clear parameters and annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, no information about the output schema or return values is provided.
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%, and the description does not add new information about parameters beyond what is 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about a specific spreadsheet, including its sheets. It distinguishes from siblings like list_spreadsheets and create_spreadsheet.
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. Usage is implied by name and description, but alternatives are not 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?
Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds that it uses Drive API, which provides implementation context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or how many projects may be returned. The description adds some value beyond annotations but is limited.
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 long, with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds implementation detail. Every sentence earns its place, 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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely complete. It mentions the underlying API and accessibility scope. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the scope (only Google Apps Script projects, not other Drive files) and provide more guidance on when to use this over other listing tools, but overall it 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%, and the description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies as the description does not enrich parameter understanding.
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 that the tool lists Google Apps Script projects accessible to the user, using Drive API. The title and description are aligned, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_script_project (single project) and create/delete script projects.
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 mentions using Drive API to find Apps Script files, implying it is for listing script-specific items, but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_drive_items or search_drive_files. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
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 destructiveHint=true, so the description adds no new behavioral insights. It does not detail update modes (merge/replace/remove) or deprecations, which are left to the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the consolidation key point, with no unnecessary words.
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 (26 parameters, multiple update modes, deprecated fields), the description is too terse. It doesn't explain the required user_google_email, the action enum, or the merge/replace/remove modes, relying entirely on the schema. For an agent to quickly grasp capabilities, more context is needed.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all 26 parameters, including enums, deprecated fields, and update modes. The tool description adds only the consolidation context, which does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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, updates, or deletes a contact and explicitly says it replaces three separate tools (create_contact, update_contact, delete_contact), providing strong differentiation from similar tools like manage_contact_group or get_contact.
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 tells the agent to use this consolidated tool instead of the three individual ones, giving clear context on when to use it. However, it doesn't mention alternatives like manage_contacts_batch for batch operations, nor does it specify 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 indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description explains the behavior of each action (create, reply, resolve) and their required parameters, plus a limitation for create. This adds meaningful context beyond annotations, though it does not cover potential error states or side effects like rate limits.
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, using a short introductory line followed by a clear bullet-like list of actions with required parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous information. The structure is easy to parse for an AI agent.
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 (3 actions, 5 params, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality and a notable limitation. It does not need to explain return values due to output schema. However, it omits details on some required parameters (user_google_email, document_id) and does not mention default values or null handling. Still, it is largely complete for actionable use.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully bears the burden. It explains which parameters are needed for each action (e.g., comment_content for create, comment_id for reply/resolve). However, it does not describe the meaning of 'user_google_email' or 'document_id', nor any constraints on string formats or allowed values for 'action'. The added value is moderate, meeting baseline but not exceeding.
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 'Manage comments on a Google Document' and lists three specific actions (create, reply, resolve), providing a clear purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling comment tools for other document types (presentation, spreadsheet) and includes a useful limitation note about text anchoring. However, the verb 'manage' is somewhat generic, and the description could be more explicit about the overall 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 for Google Docs comments and notes a key limitation (cannot anchor to text via Drive API). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_document_comments for reading) or when not to use it. The guidance is mostly implied, missing explicit exclusion criteria.
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=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by stating it returns Message IDs, Thread IDs, and web links, and supports pagination. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication details, or behavior with large result sets.
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 core purpose. Each sentence adds essential information: action, return values, and pagination support. No redundant or vague language.
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 annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers returned fields and pagination. It could improve by mentioning query syntax or sorting order, but overall it meets the needs for a search 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?
With 100% schema coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions pagination via page_token but does not add significant meaning beyond the 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 searches Gmail messages based on a query, specifying the resource (Gmail messages) and action (search). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_messages (generic) and get_gmail_message_content (retrieval) by mentioning Gmail-specific return fields and pagination.
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 searching Gmail messages but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like search_custom or search_drive_files. No guidance on when not to use this tool versus other search tools 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 indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds that it supports replies and Send As, but does not disclose rate limits, auth details beyond the user_google_email param, or idempotency concerns. The annotations already provide the basic behavioral profile, so the description adds marginal 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?
Two concise sentences: first covers core function, second covers a notable feature (Send As). No redundant or extraneous text.
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 (14 params), detailed schema, and output schema, the description covers the essentials (send new/reply, attachments, Send As). It could mention signature handling or body format, but those are covered in schema. The description is sufficiently complete 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has detailed descriptions. The tool description does not add any new parameter information 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 clearly states the verb ('sends'), the resource (Gmail email), and the scope (new emails and replies with attachments). It also mentions the Send As feature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like draft_gmail_message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage scenarios (new emails, replies, Send As) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like draft_gmail_message or send_message.
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 read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds diagnostic and temporary nature, enhancing transparency 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?
Two concise sentences front-load purpose and context with no wasted words.
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 output schema and rich annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and usage. It could benefit from specifying what runtime info is returned, but is sufficient for a simple diagnostic tool.
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?
The description provides no explanation for the required parameter user_google_email, despite schema coverage being 0%. This is a critical 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 for diagnosing stale MCP server instances, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like debug_table_structure.
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 it is temporary and intended to verify which code checkout the server has loaded, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.
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 safe read-only behavior. Description adds no additional behavioral context beyond restating the purpose.
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?
Single sentence, 7 words, front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary 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?
Simple read-only tool with full schema and annotations. Output schema exists, so description doesn't need to explain returns. 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%, so description adds no extra meaning. 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 uses specific verb 'Lists' and resource 'deployments for a script project', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like list_script_projects.
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 (e.g., list_versions). Usage context is implied but 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 provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, which fully convey the behavioral profile. The description adds no extra context beyond stating it lists filters, so it neither adds nor contradicts 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, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is concise with no unnecessary words.
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, good annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does, and the remaining details are covered by the schema 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?
The schema description covers the single parameter (user_google_email) with a clear explanation. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets 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 clearly states the verb 'Lists', the resource 'Gmail filters', and the scope 'user's mailbox'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'manage_gmail_filter' (for CRUD) and 'list_gmail_labels' (for 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 is straightforward and does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given it is a simple list action, the usage context is implicitly clear. No exclusions or when-not scenarios 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?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. Description adds that it handles create/update/delete actions, which aligns, but does not disclose additional traits (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits, or that it uses People API batch endpoints).
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 that front-load the core purpose and succinctly add context about consolidation. No wasted words.
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?
Covers the basic batch operation and consolidation, but does not describe return values, error behavior, or limits (e.g., batch size), despite the tool's complexity and existence of an 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., actions enum, fields in contacts/updates). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond stating the actions, 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?
Description clearly states 'Batch create, update, or delete contacts' using specific verbs and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it is a consolidated replacement for three separate batch 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?
Implies usage for any batch operation on contacts and references the tools it replaces, but does not explicitly state when to use alternative tools like manage_contact for single contact operations or note any 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?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the Drive API cannot anchor comments to arbitrary text and that Slides comments are element-scoped. Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, but the description enriches understanding of constraints and action behaviors.
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, using a short sentence followed by a bullet list for actions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure front-loads the main purpose. It is well-organized and easy to scan.
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 (three actions, five parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the actions and their dependencies adequately. However, it lacks context on the two missing parameters and does not guide the agent to related tools like list_presentation_comments for obtaining comment IDs, leaving gaps for effective 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only explains three of five parameters (action, comment_content, comment_id). It omits descriptions for the required parameters 'user_google_email' and 'presentation_id', which are critical for invocation. The action-specific parameter guidance is helpful but incomplete.
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), providing a precise verb-resource pairing. The note about Slides comments being element-scoped further distinguishes it from similar comment tools for other Google apps.
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 explains each action and its parameter requirements, which implies when to use them. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., manage_document_comment, manage_spreadsheet_comment) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, limiting clarity on 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 readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds that it uses Drive API and returns a formatted list, but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations 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?
Description is brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and output without extraneous 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 annotations and output schema existence, description is largely complete for a simple search tool, though it could mention pagination or result format details.
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 description only implies that 'query' is for name search. It does not explain 'user_google_email' format, 'page_size' behavior, or provide parameter semantics beyond what the schema names suggest.
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 it searches for Google Docs by name using Drive API, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_drive_files which search all 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?
Description implies usage context (searching docs by name) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or alternatives, though it is clear enough to differentiate from broader searches.
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 that the tool is legacy, disabled under OAuth 2.1, and that the system auto-handles credentials. It adds context beyond annotations (openWorldHint=true) by explaining automation behavior, but lacks specifics on the OAuth flow steps 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 concise and well-structured, with a main sentence, a note, and bullet points. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides guidance, with no superfluous text.
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 an output schema, the description omits critical details: parameter meanings, authentication flow specifics, and output expectations. For a complex OAuth tool with zero schema parameter descriptions, this is incomplete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the parameters 'service_name' and 'user_google_email'. It does not clarify what values they expect or how they affect the OAuth flow, leaving the agent without necessary usage 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 states 'Manually initiate Google OAuth authentication flow,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle Google Workspace operations, indicating this tool is solely for authentication.
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 lists three conditions for use and advises that 'in most cases, simply try calling the Google Workspace tool you need' for automatic authentication. It also notes this is a legacy tool disabled when OAuth 2.1 is enabled, providing clear guidance on when to use alternatives.
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 non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. Description adds that formatting and content are preserved, but lacks details on permissions or side effects beyond the openWorldHint.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no 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?
Adequate given full schema coverage and presence of output schema; could mention error conditions or permission requirements but not critical for this simple 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 coverage is 100% and description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what is already in the input 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 clearly states 'Creates a copy of an existing Google Drive file', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_drive_file and update_drive_file by focusing on copying.
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?
Clear context provided: copies template document to a new location with optional new name. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternatives.
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 write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds value by disclosing the two content input modes (direct content or fileUrl) and support for shared drives, which is not apparent from annotations alone.
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: first states purpose and shared drive support, second lists the two content modes. No redundancy or unnecessary 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?
Covers core functionality (creation, shared drives, content sources) but lacks details like prerequisites or error handling. However, output schema exists and annotations are present, so the description is fairly complete for its 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'direct content or fileUrl' and 'shared drives' but does not add new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing what the schema states.
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 it creates a new file in Google Drive, supporting shared drives and two content modes. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_doc (for Google Docs) or create_drive_folder (for folders).
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 tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use create_doc for Docs). The description implies generic file creation but does not contrast with other create tools, leaving the agent to infer from 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 indicate destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it applies formatting (mutation, not destructive), specifies color hex format, number format types, and default sheet behavior. This adds helpful context beyond annotations, though it does not mention idempotency 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 three sentences, each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main action and key details. No unnecessary 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 13 parameters, output schema present, and annotations, the description covers the tool's primary purpose and key formatting details. It does not discuss error cases or return values (output schema covers returns). Reasonably complete for a formatting 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 each parameter is documented. The description adds general context on colors and number formats but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides some added value but not extensive.
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 applies formatting to a range and lists specific formatting types (colors, number formats, text wrapping, alignment, text styling). This distinguishes it from siblings like modify_sheet_values (changes values) and manage_conditional_formatting (conditional rules).
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions default sheet behavior but lacks context on when to prefer formatting over other sheet manipulation tools. Minimal 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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the different API calls based on file type (Docs API vs Drive API), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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 with a bullet point for key differentiation. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded. No unnecessary words 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?
With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the two file types and API handling, which is sufficient for this complexity. Minor gap: missing mention of potential limitations like file size or error conditions, but these may be covered in output schema or 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add detail beyond the schema for parameters like user_google_email or suggestions_view_mode, but it mentions document_id in context. The schema already provides enum descriptions, so the description adds minimal value for 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 content of Google Docs or Drive files (e.g., .docx) and distinguishes the handling via Docs API vs Drive API. This differentiates it from siblings like get_doc_as_markdown or get_drive_file_content, providing clear purpose.
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 document content but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_doc_as_markdown. There is no mention of exclusions or context for when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer based on file type.
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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds detail on returned fields (subject, sender, recipients, body) but no further behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects. With strong annotations, this is adequate but not enhanced.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every element is essential and directly informs the agent's decision.
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 tool with output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the return structure. It could mention required parameters but schema already handles that. Overall, complete for a read 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 coverage is 100% and description adds no extra meaning beyond what the input schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema fully documents 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 the full content of a specific Gmail message, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like get_gmail_attachment_content or batch variants.
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 retrieving a single message's content, providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, though the sibling list suggests other tools for different scopes.
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. Description mentions supported actions but adds no extra behavioral context beyond what the schema provides. 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?
Description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with key purpose and scope. No wasted words.
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 (14 parameters, output schema present), the description provides a high-level overview but does not detail return values or prerequisites. However, the output schema and annotations fill some 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 description adds minimal extra meaning. It rephrases the action types but does not provide new insight into parameter usage 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?
Description clearly states it is a consolidated tool for managing Google Drive access permissions, listing specific actions (grant, batch-grant, update, revoke, transfer_owner). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being a single entry point for all these permission management tasks.
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?
Description implies use for any permission management task but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_drive_file_permissions or get_drive_file_permissions. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or alternative recommendations.
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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that these events auto-decline invitations and set the status across Google Workspace. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description provides specifics. No contradictions exist.
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-loading the purpose and key behavior. Every sentence adds value, with 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 14 parameters fully described in the schema and an output schema available, the description is sufficient for most scenarios. It could mention the return type or typical success behavior, 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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information 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 clearly states it manages Out of Office events on Google Calendar, distinguishing them from regular events by explaining their special behavior (auto-decline invitations, set status across Workspace). This provides a specific verb and resource, differentiating 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., manage_event or manage_focus_time). While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context 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 declare destructiveHint=true, and description elaborates by listing destructive actions (deleteItem). It also mentions non-destructive updates (metadata, settings). Adds context beyond annotations, such as supporting add/update/delete operations. 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 concise sentences. First sentence states core purpose. Second lists operations (some redundancy with description). Third notes primary usage. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).
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 3 required parameters, full schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description covers the main use case. Does not mention prerequisites like permissions, but annotations (destructiveHint) imply mutation. Sufficient for typical 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters described in schema). The description does not add extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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?
Clearly states: 'Apply batch updates to a Google Form.' Lists supported operations (adding, updating, deleting items; updating metadata/settings). Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_form and get_form by noting it's the 'primary method for modifying form content after creation.' Purpose is specific and well-defined.
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?
Implies usage for modifications after creation ('primary method for modifying form content after creation'). Does not explicitly exclude creation or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (create_form) provides clear differentiation. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but sufficient for an AI agent.
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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: mentions document body starts at index 1, total length of a new empty doc is 2, and explains index structure. No contradictions.
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: first sentence states purpose, then provides technical details and workflow. It is not overly verbose, though the technical detail about indices could be slightly compressed. Front-loads key 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 complex Google Docs API context, the description provides essential creation behavior and a clear workflow for building rich documents. The presence of an output schema (context signal) means return value explanation is unnecessary, so the description is sufficiently 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?
Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, providing 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning 'optional initial plain text content' for the content parameter, which is already clear from 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?
Clearly states 'Creates a new Google Doc and optionally inserts initial content' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools by describing subsequent steps using batch_update_doc and inspect_doc_structure, which are also in the sibling list.
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 explicit workflow guidance: after creation, use batch_update_doc with end_of_segment=true, then inspect_doc_structure. This helps the agent choose the right tool for subsequent steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives for creation.
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 provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds that versions are immutable and cannot be modified, which is behavioral 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?
The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no unnecessary words.
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 tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: creates an immutable version. No 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% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states the tool creates a new immutable version of a script project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_script_project or get_version by focusing on version creation.
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 tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied from the purpose, but no when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.
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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, providing strong behavioral signals. The description adds valuable context about the specific metadata returned (permissions, parent IDs, ownership, timestamps), which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions and no missing disclosures beyond what annotations 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 sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No redundant or extraneous information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent 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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core functionality, and the annotations fully cover behavioral traits. With 2 well-documented parameters, complete annotations, and output schema present, there are no gaps in information needed for the agent to understand the tool's use.
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%: both parameters (user_google_email, file_id) have clear descriptions in the schema. The description does not add extra information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers 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 the tool 'Gets detailed metadata about a Google Drive file including sharing permissions, parent folder IDs, ownership, and lifecycle timestamps.' The verb 'Gets' and resource 'detailed metadata' are specific, and the listed contents distinguish it from sibling tools like 'check_drive_file_public_access' (more narrow) and 'manage_drive_access' (write operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. Given siblings like 'check_drive_file_public_access' for a specific check and 'manage_drive_access' for modifications, explicit usage context would help the agent select correctly. No when/when-not/exclusions 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context like parameter interactions and shared drive support, but does not significantly extend beyond annotations. 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?
The description is concise (162 words) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses conditional phrasing to cover multiple scenarios efficiently, with no redundant sentences.
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 (13 parameters, output schema exists, annotations rich), the description covers all primary use cases and parameter relationships. It mentions the output schema is not needed, and the description is complete for an informed 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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining parameter interactions (e.g., drive_id and folder_id), but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 that the tool lists files/folders or shared drive containers, supporting shared drives. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_docs_in_folder and search_drive_files by explicitly covering both item listing and shared drive listing.
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 context on when to use drive_id vs not, and how to list shared drives via resource_type. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use sibling alternatives like search_drive_files for broader search or list_docs_in_folder for document-specific listing.
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 mutability and destructiveness. Description repeats actions from schema but adds no extra behavioral context 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key actions, no 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?
Given output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description effectively communicates the consolidated nature and core functionality without needing to detail 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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions; description does not add additional meaning beyond listing the actions, which are already in the action parameter 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?
Description explicitly states it creates, updates, deletes, or modifies members, and mentions it consolidates multiple previous tools, clearly differentiating from siblings.
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 it replaces specific tools, giving clear context for when to use this instead of alternatives. No explicit when-not or exclusions, but the consolidation message is effective.
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 atomic batch behavior and warns about index calculation errors, recommending end_of_segment=true. It adds context beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true) by explaining how to avoid pitfalls. It could be more explicit about failure handling but is generally good.
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 lengthy and includes a detailed recommended workflow with examples. While well-structured with sections and bold headings, it could be more concise. The information is valuable but verbose, earning a mid-score.
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 (multiple operation types) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: atomicity, alternative tools, and a workflow to avoid errors. It is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.
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 already documents all parameters. The description provides additional context on usage patterns (e.g., end_of_segment vs index) and includes example operations, which adds value but does not systematically describe each parameter 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 it executes multiple low-level document operations in a single atomic batch update. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_doc_headers_footers by specifying when to use each, providing a specific verb ('batch update') and resource ('doc').
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 guides when to use this tool versus alternatives, e.g., 'For normal header/footer text, prefer update_doc_headers_footers. Only use create_header_footer here for advanced section-break layouts.' It also provides a detailed recommended workflow with phases to avoid index calculation errors.
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 provide limited hints (not read-only, not destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral details: file path vs temporary URL based on mode, and URL expiration. 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 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, second sentence adds essential mode details. No unnecessary words 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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with schema descriptions and an output schema, the description adequately covers behavior and return values. Lacks details on authorization requirements or edge cases, but overall 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?
Input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. The user_google_email parameter lacks description both in schema and description, so baseline score 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 downloads an attachment from a Google Chat message and saves it to local disk. The verb 'download' and resource 'attachment from a Google Chat message' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_gmail_attachment_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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clarifies mode-specific behavior (stdio vs HTTP) and mentions URL validity duration. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the tool name and context make the usage 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?
Description explains parameter precedence (event_id overrides time parameters) and default behavior (time_min defaults to current time). Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and description is consistent, adding context on parameter interactions.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, concise, and every sentence adds value. 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?
Covers main use cases and parameter interactions. Output schema exists, so return value details are handled. Could mention pagination limits, but max_results parameter 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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters. Tool description adds context about overall behavior (e.g., retrieval modes) but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond 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 clearly states 'Retrieves events from a specified Google Calendar' and specifies two modes: single event by ID or multiple events within a time range, plus keyword search. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_calendars or 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?
Describes when to use event_id vs time range vs query, providing clear guidance on parameter usage. Does not explicitly exclude use for writing or modifying events, but annotations already indicate read-only nature.
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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds context about batching limit and SSL connection exhaustion, which is beyond annotations. Does not contradict annotations. Could mention error handling or response format, but 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. States purpose and limit 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 (batch retrieval, multiple threads) and presence of output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and key constraint. Missing explicit mention of error handling or authentication, but with good annotations and schema, it is sufficiently 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%, so parameters are fully described in schema. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a usage constraint (batch limit) which is not parameter-specific. 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 retrieves content of multiple Gmail threads in batch, using specific verb 'retrieves' and resource 'Gmail threads'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_gmail_thread_content (single thread) and get_gmail_messages_content_batch (messages vs threads).
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 mentions a limit of 25 threads per batch with a rationale (SSL exhaustion), providing some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus fetching individual threads, though the name and context imply batching is preferable for multiple threads.
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 indicate readOnlyHint=false etc. Description adds value by explaining automatic conversion, preservation of elements, and warning about memory usage for large files via file_path. 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?
Four concise sentences front-loading the main purpose and key usage tip. No wasted words.
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 conversion behavior, format support, and a size warning. With an output schema present, return values are not needed. Lacks error handling details but sufficient for typical use.
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 description adds limited new semantic info. It hints at preferring file_path for batch operations but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond 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 imports presentations in PPTX, PPT, ODP formats into Google Slides, with automatic conversion. It distinguishes itself from siblings like import_to_google_doc by specifying the target format.
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 guidance to prefer file_path for batch operations to avoid loading full file contents into context. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like create_presentation or suggest when to use file_url.
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 convey destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds value by explaining how to achieve archive (remove INBOX) and delete (add TRASH), which provides behavioral context beyond the binary 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 sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then providing two key use-cases. No redundant information, every sentence is essential.
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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main use cases. However, it does not mention what happens if both add and remove lists are empty, or error handling, but these are minor omissions.
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 parameters are documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates examples. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.
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 'Adds or removes labels from a Gmail message', providing a specific verb and resource. It also gives concrete examples (archiving by removing INBOX, deleting by adding TRASH), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_gmail_labels or get_gmail_message_content.
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 practical examples of when to use the tool for archiving and deleting, but it does not explicitly mention when to use batch_modify_gmail_message_labels instead, nor does it outline scenarios where this tool is not appropriate.
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, and idempotentHint=true, indicating it does not modify state. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the API limitation and that it generates code rather than executing it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states what the tool does, second provides necessary context. No wasted words.
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 an output schema (context indicates it exists), the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's purpose, why it exists, and the constraint (cannot create triggers via API). Complete for a code generation 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including enums and rules. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, 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?
Description clearly states it 'Generates Apps Script code for creating triggers', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools because no other tool generates code – they directly manipulate resources or run functions.
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 the reason for using this tool: 'The Apps Script API cannot create triggers directly - they must be created from within Apps Script itself.' This provides context on when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.
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 provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds significant behavioral details: exporting native docs as text/CSV, unzipping and parsing Office files, PDF text extraction with fallbacks, base64 encoding for images, and handling for other files. This goes well beyond annotations and is complete.
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: one opening sentence followed by clear bullet points. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then structured logically by file type. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place. Ideal length given the complexity.
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 (multiple file types with different handling) and the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate it exists), the description covers all necessary cases. It explains fallbacks and edge cases (e.g., image-only PDFs) and handles all file categories. No 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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details about the parameters (e.g., how to obtain file_id or user_google_email). According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high (>80%), baseline is 3. No extra value is added.
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 the content of a specific Google Drive file by ID, and explicitly lists how different file types (native Google Docs, Office files, PDFs, images, others) are handled. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_doc_content (specific to Google Docs) or get_gmail_attachment_content (Gmail attachments), providing a specific verb and 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 implies usage for any Drive file and details per-type behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_doc_as_markdown, get_drive_file_download_url, or get_gmail_attachment_content. The lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance lowers the score, though the context is 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?
Adds batch size limit and rationale beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, which are consistent.
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 core purpose, no wasted words.
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 output schema and clear annotations, description covers purpose, limit, and rationale. Complete for a batch retrieval 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 coverage 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context for limit but does not elaborate on parameter details beyond what 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?
Clearly states retrieval of multiple Gmail messages in batch, with 25 limit. Distinguishes from siblings like get_gmail_message_content (single) and get_gmail_threads_content_batch (threads).
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?
Implies batch for efficiency and preventing SSL exhaustion. Could explicitly contrast with single message retrieval, but context is 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 are minimal, but the description adds behavioral context like 'May re-fetch message metadata to resolve filename and MIME type', which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by mode-specific behavior and a note on metadata re-fetching. No wasted words.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description explains modes and base64 option. Could mention exact response format more explicitly, but sufficient for selection and use.
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, baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for return_base64, explaining its utility for sandboxed clients, which enhances understanding 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 'Downloads an email attachment and saves it to local disk' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_gmail_message_content or download_chat_attachment.
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 stdio vs HTTP modes and the return_base64 parameter for sandboxed clients, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.
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 indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no destructive or idempotent behavior. The description confirms it creates a new sheet via conversion, preserving content. It does not mention the original file is unchanged, but that is implicit. 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?
The description is 4 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by conversion details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.
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 an output schema (documenting return values) and the tool's moderate complexity (7 params, 2 required), the description covers conversion behavior, supported formats, usage recommendations, and a size warning. It adequately differentiates from siblings in 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already details each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the trade-off between content and file_path (e.g., file_path preferred for batch operations, warning about memory for large files), which supplements 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 action (imports a spreadsheet into Google Sheets), lists supported formats (XLSX, XLS, ODS, CSV, TSV), and implies automatic conversion. It distinguishes from siblings like create_spreadsheet (creates empty sheet) and import_to_google_doc (imports to Docs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers explicit guidance: 'For batch operations, prefer file_path for files on disk so callers do not need to load full file contents into their context.' It also warns about file size limits. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for creating empty sheets, use create_spreadsheet).
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: it must be called before table creation, explains output fields (total_length, tables, etc.), and provides workflows. No contradictions.
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 well-organized with clear headings and distinct sections. Each section adds unique information. Could be slightly more concise, but structure aids readability and scanability.
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 complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description is comprehensive: it covers purpose, usage context, criticality for table ops, output details, and integrated workflows. No gaps with output schema present.
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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining when to use the 'detailed' parameter (e.g., formatting workflow), and contextualizes the other parameters indirectly through workflows. Moves above 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 explicitly states the tool is for 'finding safe insertion points and understanding document structure,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing safe insertion indices and document layout analysis.
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 'USE THIS FOR' list and workflows for table insertion, formatting, and header/footer editing, indicating when to use the tool. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions for when not to use it, but the guidance is strong overall.
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 destructive (write) behavior; the description adds context about being 'high-level' and for common changes, which aids agent understanding. 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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then scope, example use, and alternatives. No wasted words, perfectly 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?
Covers purpose, usage guidelines, and distinguishes from siblings. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Could mention prerequisites or immediacy of changes, but overall 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.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter details; all parameter meaning is conveyed 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 clearly states the action ('sets file-level sharing settings and controls link sharing') and the resource ('Google Drive file or folder'). It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives for individual permission management.
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 says it's a 'high-level tool for the most common permission changes' and provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance by referencing sibling tools for individual permissions.
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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about the returned data (IDs, names, ranges, column details) and restricts to 'structured tables', which is helpful behavioral information beyond annotations. 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a specific usage hint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
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 (two required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose and use case. The tool's nature as a read-only list operation is fully supported by the annotations and 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 both parameters described in the schema. The description does not add any new information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline for high 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 lists all structured tables in a spreadsheet with specific details (IDs, names, ranges, column details). It also explicitly mentions a downstream use case (finding table IDs for append_table_rows), distinguishing it from sibling 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 directly advises using this tool to find table IDs for append_table_rows, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies an alternative (append_table_rows) rather than listing exclusions, but the explicit use case is sufficient for an agent to select correctly.
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 significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it auto-creates if missing, replaces if exists, no separate creation needed. This complements the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations. Could mention potential errors or limitations for a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening, bullet points, and imperative guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity. Front-loads purpose and key usage rules.
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 annotations, full schema coverage (100%), and existence of output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral details, and preconditions. No gaps identified.
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 5 parameters described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic information about parameters; it only references 'desired content' generically. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 'creates or updates header/footer text in a Google Doc', specifying the exact resource and action. It distinguishes itself from the sibling batch_update_doc by noting it is the default tool and that the other tool is for advanced workflows.
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 advises against using batch_update_doc for simple header/footer text updates, explaining why (advanced, can fail). It also states when to use this tool ('default') and that it handles both creation and update in one call.
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 annotations (which only indicate mutability but not destructive), the description explains the exact behavior: creates a table at a specific index, populates it with provided data, formats headers optionally bold. It specifies that rows must have equal length and cells must be strings. However, it does not explain error handling for invalid indices or malformed data, nor the return value (though output schema exists). Good but not exhaustive.
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 sections, all-caps warnings, step-by-step workflow, and a detailed example. While it is somewhat verbose and repeats some instructions (e.g., 'must call inspect_doc_structure' appears twice), every sentence adds necessary guidance. The front-loading with the main purpose and critical notes is effective.
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 complexity (6 params, dependencies on other tools, specific data formatting), the description covers all aspects: mandatory prerequisite call, index acquisition, data format rules, optional features (bold headers, tab), and post-verification with debug_table_structure. It does not explain the output, but an output schema exists. For an agent, this description is complete and self-contained.
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%, but the description adds significant value: it provides an explicit example of table_data format, reiterates the index source (inspect_doc_structure total_length), explains bold_headers default and tab_id optionality. It goes beyond the schema by giving a concrete data format example and workflow integration.
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 the tool creates a table and populates it with data in one operation. Distinguishes from sibling tools like append_table_rows (which adds rows to existing tables) and debug_table_structure (which inspects). The verb 'creates' and resource 'table with data' are 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 Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit mandatory workflow: must call inspect_doc_structure first, use its total_length as index, format data as 2D list, and optionally debug after. Gives when-to-use (single reliable operation for table creation) and when-not-to-use (never guess index). Clearly states prerequisites and alternative verification steps.
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations by explaining what the tool reveals (dimensions, cell coordinates, content, insertion indices). It also aligns perfectly with annotations, with 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with labeled sections (ESSENTIAL DEBUGGING TOOL, USE THIS IMMEDIATELY WHEN, WHAT THIS SHOWS YOU, HOW TO READ THE OUTPUT, WORKFLOW INTEGRATION). While it is relatively long, every sentence adds value and the structure aids readability. Slightly verbose but not excessive.
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 an output schema exists, the description compensates by explaining how to interpret the output (dimensions, position, current_content, insertion_index). It covers common scenarios and integrates with other tools (populate_existing_table). Annotations provide safety guarantees, making the tool fully described.
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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add further semantic information about the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. 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's purpose: debugging table structure. It uses specific verbs like 'inspect' and 'debug', and explicitly lists conditions when it should be used, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with document structure or sheet tables.
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 guidelines on when to use the tool: immediately when tables don't work, for planning before populating, and for debugging failures. It also integrates with a workflow (After creating, Before populating, After population fails, When debugging), leaving no ambiguity about usage context.
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 reveals automatic conversion behavior and formatting preservation, and warns about file_path memory/streaming limitations: 'file_path may still load the file into memory or perform non-streaming reads. Avoid very large files...' This adds significant context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), which already indicate mutation without destruction. 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?
The description is concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose and formats, second paragraph adds conversion details and usage guidance. Every sentence serves a clear purpose 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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description covers purpose, supported formats, conversion behavior, and usage guidance. It could add differentiation from create_doc or mention authentication, but overall it's thorough enough for an AI agent to use 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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by contextualizing file_path vs content usage (batch operations, memory considerations) and the conversion process, which supplements the 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 imports a file into Google Docs format, listing supported formats (Markdown, DOCX, TXT, HTML, RTF, ODT). It uses a specific verb ('imports') and resource ('file into Google Docs format'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like import_to_google_sheets 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit 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 advises when to use file_path vs content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond the sibling differentiation.
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 context beyond annotations by explaining the operation can both insert/replace and format text in one go, and warns about the risk of using invalid segment IDs. This is useful additional 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 concise with three key sentences: one for purpose, one for a useful tip, and one for critical usage distinctions. No wasted words; information is front-loaded 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 complexity (21 parameters) and the existence of an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers essential aspects: combining text and formatting, appending, alternatives, and segment ID handling. It could mention that it modifies the document in place, but annotations already imply mutation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete 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.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the TIP for end_of_segment, clarifying that start_index=0 is an alias for the first writable position, and warning about segment_id guessing. These augment the 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 it modifies text in a Google Doc with specific verbs: insert/replace text and apply formatting. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing a specific alternative (update_doc_headers_footers) and providing caution about segment_id, avoiding confusion with other doc 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?
Provides explicit guidance: a TIP for appending text without index calculation, explicit instruction to prefer update_doc_headers_footers for ordinary header/footer text, and a clear warning about segment ID usage ('do not guess IDs'). This helps the agent decide when to use this tool vs alternatives.
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?
Disclosures beyond annotations: preserves file ID, sharing, comments, links; single call for metadata+content. 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 tight paragraphs, front-loaded with core purpose; every sentence adds unique 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?
Adequately covers core behavior for a complex 16-parameter update tool; missing details are in schema/output schema.
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?
100% schema coverage, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining content replacement interplay and format conversion hints.
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 updates metadata, properties, and content of a Google Drive file, distinguishing it from creation or copying 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?
Provides explicit guidance on content replacement via content/file_path/file_url and compares to import_to_google_doc. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context suffices.
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 provide destructiveHint true and idempotentHint false. The description adds context that this is 'the safest way to update specific text' and explains why (no index errors). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional behavioral insight beyond the structured fields.
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 short, well-structured with a clear lead sentence and bullet points for use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the content is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 has 6 parameters (4 required), full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and safety considerations. It explains when to use alternatives and does not need to elaborate on return values since an output schema exists. The description is complete 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.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the use case for replace_text and find_text (e.g., placeholder replacement) and reinforces that no indices are needed, which informs the agent about parameter usage without repeating schema 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 clearly states the tool finds and replaces text in a Google Doc and emphasizes 'No index calculation required.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like batch_update_doc and modify_doc_text by highlighting the advantage of not needing indices.
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 lists when to use the tool with three bullet-point examples (e.g., replacing placeholders) and provides guidance on when to use alternatives: 'For building documents from scratch, consider inserting text with unique placeholders via batch_update_doc, then using this tool to replace 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 declare safety (readOnly, idempotent). Description adds value by detailing output format (clean Markdown), formatting preservation, and comment anchor text context. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences front-loading purpose, then comparison, then comment detail. No fluff, every sentence adds value.
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 full schema coverage, annotations, and output schema, the description is complete. Explains output format, sibling distinction, and comment behavior 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds context for comment parameters by explaining anchor text preservation and default behavior, slightly improving beyond 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?
Clearly states it reads a Google Doc and returns Markdown, distinguishes from get_doc_content by specifying it preserves formatting and includes optional comments.
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?
Explicitly contrasts with get_doc_content for plain text, explaining when to use this tool. Provides details on comment modes but lacks explicit 'when not to use' scenarios.
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 mode-dependent behavior (stdio vs HTTP), time limit on temporary URL (1 hour), and specifics of export formats for Google native files. Adds significant value beyond annotations, which already indicate safe read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured and front-loaded with the main action, followed by mode differences and native file handling. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or 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?
Fully explains the tool's behavior, return types, export logic, and edge cases. Output schema exists but description doesn't need to repeat return values; it covers all necessary context for agent decision-making.
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. Description adds meaningful context for export_format, including defaults per file type and valid options, which helps the agent select correct parameter values.
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 the tool downloads a Google Drive file to local disk, with specific behavior for native vs other files. Distinguishes from siblings by detailing the download mechanism and export options.
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 for when to use (downloading files) and details export formats for different file types. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage.
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 reveals important behavioral traits beyond annotations: the batchUpdate process (copyPaste followed by deleteDimension), potential partial failure leading to duplicate rows, and preservation of formulas/data types/formatting. This adds significant value as the annotations only indicate destructiveness.
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 with no filler. First sentence states purpose, second explains batchUpdate behavior and risk, third clarifies row numbering. Every sentence contributes essential information without 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?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema present), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, mechanism, failure mode, data preservation, and numbering convention. It does not need to explain return values as an output schema exists. This is comprehensive for the tool's nature.
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?
While the schema covers 100% of parameters, the description adds useful context: row numbers are 1-based (matching UI) and row range is inclusive. This goes beyond the schema descriptions which already mention 1-based. The extra note about inclusive range and UI alignment provides marginal added value.
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 moves rows between sheets within the same spreadsheet, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like append_table_rows or modify_sheet_values by focusing on move operations with batch update behavior.
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 does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, but it contrasts with a values.get/append round-trip, implying this tool is better for preserving formulas and formatting. However, no direct exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are given.
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/theolefort-cyber/mcpworkspace'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server