analyze_drive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While the actions are described (analyze, find duplicates, generate report), it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects. This lack of safety disclosure is a gap.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant words. Efficiently lists key capabilities.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavior. However, it doesn't describe the report format or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, which is minor given the analysis nature.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter findDuplicates. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes Google Drive, enumerating specific outputs (file statistics, duplicate detection, report generation). Distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_photos and deduplicate_drive by focusing on analysis rather than photo-specific or deduplication actions.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you need Drive statistics or duplicate finding or a report). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity versus deduplicate_drive which may actually remove duplicates.

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