get_file_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves metadata and returns name/type/link, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or side effects. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying the returned metadata fields, but omits details about edge cases (e.g., file not found, insufficient permissions).

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 highly concise: one sentence stating the purpose plus a brief parameter definition. It front-loads the key purpose and avoids any superfluous text. Every sentence 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 simple metadata-fetching tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the input (file_id) and what the output will contain (name, type, link), relying on the output schema for return details. It lacks only usage context (covered in dimension 2), and omits potential error scenarios, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that file_id is 'ID del archivo en Google Drive' (ID of the file in Google Drive), which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'File Id'. However, it does not elaborate on the format or expected values, and since there is only one parameter, the compensation is minimal but sufficient for a simple ID lookup.

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 uses a specific verb 'Obtiene' (gets) and clearly identifies the resource as 'metadatos de un archivo o carpeta' (metadata of a file or folder). It lists the specific metadata fields (name, type, link), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, search, download, or modify files.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, with no mention of when to choose get_file_info over list_files, search_files, or download_file. There are no exclusions or contextual hints.

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