get-drive-item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description repeats 'Read-only', adding little. It does disclose that the result is 'Nullable' and lists the metadata fields returned, which adds context. However, the statement 'All items contained in the drive' falsely implies it returns multiple items, which misrepresents actual behavior. With the annotation bar lowered, this partial but misleading disclosure warrants a mid-range score.

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?

The description is moderately concise with a useful TIP section that provides actionable guidance on download alternatives. However, the opening 'All items contained in the drive' is not only misleading but also redundant given the tool name and later clarification. It could be tightened to a single clear statement of purpose without losing value.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description reasonably covers the key aspects: it states the metadata fields returned, guides on download alternatives for large/small files, and implies the response includes a download URL. It does not explain differences between this and other drive-item tools (e.g., get-drive-root-item), but given the openWorldHint and structured schema, it is sufficiently complete for common use.

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 every parameter (driveId, driveItemId, expand, select, etc.) already has a detailed description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning—it does not explain parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema provides. Per calibration, baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'All items contained in the drive' which is misleading—this tool actually retrieves metadata for a single file/folder. The tip later clarifies 'Gets metadata for a file or folder' and lists specific fields, so the purpose becomes clear, but the contradictory opening undermines clarity and fails to immediately distinguish from listing tools.

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 description gives explicit guidance on when to use alternative tools for content download: for large files, call get-download-url; for small files, call download-bytes. This clearly identifies when not to use this tool for content. However, it does not discuss when to use this over other metadata-centric siblings (e.g., list-drive-item-versions), so it is not fully comprehensive.

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