Helvedrive

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds one useful behavioral detail not in the annotations: the default scope is 'My files'. It says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or how large folders are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb, resource, and default scope with zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits result format/pagination expectations and any routing to search_files, which an agent choosing between listing and searching would benefit from.

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%, so both 'path' and 'workspace' are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's 'My files by default' reinforces the path default but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (folders and files in a folder) with the scope of the user's Helvedrive, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling search_files, which also returns file listings, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical '(My files by default)' implies the default browsing context, which hints at usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or mention of search_files as the alternative for locating files. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain context beyond that — the fact that every save retains the previous version — which explains what the listed items actually represent. It stops short of stating ordering, count limits, or whether deleted-file versions are included.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the parenthetical earns its place by defining version semantics.

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 should ideally say what a version entry contains (id, timestamp, author) and how results are ordered or paginated. Annotations and the schema cover safety and inputs, so the definition is usable but leaves the shape of the response unknown.

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%, so all three parameters (path, file_id, workspace) are documented with examples and the path/file_id alternative is spelled out in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the saved versions of a file") and parenthetically defines what a version is, which is genuinely clarifying. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_folder or read_file, but the resource (versions) is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: call this when you need the history of saves for a specific file. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of how to choose between the path and file_id parameters, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., file must exist in the caller's workspace).

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

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one piece of real behavioral context — that results include storage usage per organisation — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or completeness of the list, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every clause (resource, scope, returned data) earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list whose safety profile is fully carried by annotations, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is return-shape detail — pagination, ordering, and what 'storage use' contains — but with no output schema this is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing about parameter syntax or formats needs explaining, and the description does not introduce any misleading parameter-like claims.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the user's Helvedrive organisations'), plus an added qualifier ('with their storage use') that tells the agent what data comes back. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_folder, list_versions, and search_files, though it doesn't explicitly name what separates it from them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives among the sibling tools. Usage is only inferable from the name, and nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over search_files or list_folder.

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

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world. The description adds real value beyond them: the return representation varies by file type (text, image, embedded resource) and there is a hard 5 MB ceiling. It does not mention auth or workspace-scoping behavior, but that is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded with the size constraint and fallback following immediately. Every clause carries information.

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 what comes back for each file class, plus the size limit and fallback path. Auth requirements and workspace-scoping edge cases are left to the schema, which keeps this slightly short of complete.

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%, so all three parameters (path, file_id, workspace) are already documented in the schema, including the 'path relative to My files' example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a file from the user's Helvedrive') and even breaks down the outcome by file type. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_files or list_versions, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 5 MB limit with a routing hint ('for larger files create a share link') is useful when-not guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to read by path vs file_id, or when to prefer search_files to locate a file first — usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the drive-wide scope, which is useful, but says nothing about matching behavior (partial/case-insensitive), result limits, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, filter, and scope in that order; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only search with a fully documented schema and a complete annotation set, the description supplies the essential scope. Only the absence of result-volume/pagination expectations keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so both 'query' (part of the file name) and the optional 'workspace' are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by name' phrasing reinforces the query parameter but adds no format or matching details beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (find files) plus the search dimension (by name) and scope (anywhere in the user's Helvedrive). It is distinguishable from list_folder in practice, but the description never names a sibling, so it stops short of explicit differentiation.

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?

'Anywhere in the user's Helvedrive' implicitly contrasts with folder-scoped siblings like list_folder and read_file, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives for locating content by anything other than name.

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