read_a_paperA paper of the work — Legal's redline, a draft, the document a letter carries — by its Drive id, as the record names it. It is fetched through Tommo Legal's Google connection now, from this workspace's folders only, and answered as the file itself with its name and its Drive link; nothing is copied.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drive_id | Yes | The paper's Drive id, as the record names it |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the fetch goes through Tommo Legal's Google connection, is limited to this workspace's folders, returns the file with name and Drive link, and explicitly states 'nothing is copied'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single front-loaded sentence that opens with the resource and then states connection, scope, and return. The em-dash exemplar list ('Legal's redline, a draft, the document a letter carries') is a touch flowery but earns its place by disambiguating the resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining the return shape (the file itself, its name, its Drive link) and the auth path (Tommo Legal's Google connection) plus workspace scope. Little an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'The paper's Drive id, as the record names it'. The description repeats that phrasing without adding format, syntax, or provenance detail, so the schema carries the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the resource concretely (Legal's redline, a draft, the document a letter carries) and what is returned (the file itself with its name and Drive link), so an agent can identify it as a Drive-file read. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the many other read_* siblings (read_a_card, read_a_job, read_an_act, read_an_email).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied through the scoping statement ('by its Drive id, as the record names it', 'from this workspace's folders only') but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sizable read_* sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.