drive_list_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List file revisions' without mentioning what is included (e.g., metadata, timestamps), pagination, sorting, or whether it is a read-only operation. Minimal behavioral detail is provided.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource.

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 tool is simple with one required parameter, and an output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values. However, the lack of any usage guidelines or behavioral context makes the description only minimally viable for an AI agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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%, and the description does not explicitly describe the file_id parameter. However, the phrase 'List file revisions' implies that file_id identifies the file whose revisions are listed, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter name and type.

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 a specific verb 'List' and resource 'file revisions' with the clarifying parenthetical 'version history'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like drive_read_file or drive_search, as no other sibling targets revision history.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling tools.

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