Recall persistent facts and preferences your agents have written. In v1 this returns semantic search results across artifacts; v1.5 will narrow to auto-extracted facts (preferences, decisions, key entities).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Recall query — what fact, preference, or decision are you trying to remember? | |
| top_k | No | Max results (default 5, max 20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions semantic search across artifacts and version plan, but lacks disclosure on access scope, authentication, rate limits, or whether reads are safe.
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?
Two sentences with essential information. First sentence states purpose, second clarifies version difference. No redundant words.
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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core functionality and future evolution. Could mention output format, but not critical given input schema richness.
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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The tool description adds context about query purpose (fact/preference/decision) and default/max for top_k, but these are already in schema. No additional meaning beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states the tool recalls persistent facts and preferences written by agents, differentiating it from siblings like drive_search (general search) and drive_context. Specific verb 'recall' and resource 'persistent facts and preferences'.
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?
Implicitly suggests use when needing to recall facts/preferences, but no explicit when-not or alternatives. Version note (v1 vs v1.5) provides some temporal context but no exclusionary guidance.
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.
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but drive_context, drive_recall, and drive_search have overlapping retrieval semantics that could confuse an agent. drive_activity and drive_log_run also have potential ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'drive_verb_noun' pattern with clear verbs (e.g., drive_list, drive_write, drive_delete). No mixing of conventions.
20 tools is a reasonable number for a comprehensive workspace management server, covering file operations, collaboration, sandbox, and context retrieval. Not excessive, but slightly above the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool surface covers core CRUD for files, comments, sharing, search, roles, and sandbox features. Missing some minor operations like updating comments or renaming files, but no critical gaps for typical workflows.
