list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cursor-based pagination via nextCursor, and clarifies behavior with root/team contexts. This goes beyond the schema and is valuable for a read-only listing tool.

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?

Four succinct, information-dense sentences with no redundancy. Each sentence conveys a distinct operational fact: main purpose, root handling, team handling, and pagination.

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 list tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping, and pagination. It does not detail the response payload beyond nextCursor, but the essentials are present for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 80%, and the schema already describes all parameters except limit. The description reinforces parentFolderId and teamId semantics but does not add major new meaning beyond what the schema provides, except the pagination tie-in with cursor and nextCursor.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('List files and folders'), and adds important scoping details (root vs team). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_file or get_folder which fetch specific items, even though no alternative is explicitly named.

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?

Provides concrete usage scenarios: omit parentFolderId for root and pass teamId for team drives. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of list_folder_children or search, so it lacks exclusions.

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