list_files

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

No annotations exist, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only covers basic parameter semantics and does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it includes trashed files, how pagination works beyond page_size, or what happens with invalid folder IDs. This is a significant gap for a simple instrument.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the description lacks behavioral context such as whether it lists only immediate children, whether shared files appear, or how the page_size parameter integrates with pagination. For a simple listing tool it is minimally adequate, but leaves room for more behavioral detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining each parameter: folder_id (empty = root), page_size (1-100), and name_contains (optional filter). All three parameters receive meaningful context beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 lists files and folders in Google Drive, using a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('archivos y carpetas en Google Drive'). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_files or get_file_info, but does not explicitly name or contrast itself against them, so it misses the full 5.

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 when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description implies listing a folder's contents but doesn't explain when to choose this over search_files or other siblings. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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