resolve_google_file

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 the tool resolves 'basic metadata' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., file name, type, size, permissions), whether it requires authentication, if it has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error handling, which are important for a tool interacting with external services like Google Drive, leaving room for improvement.

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, but the description doesn't add any meaningful details about the parameter 'file_id_or_url'. It doesn't explain what formats are accepted (e.g., file ID vs. full URL), examples, or constraints. Since the parameter count is low (1), the baseline is 4, but the lack of compensation for the schema gap reduces the score to 3.

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 action ('resolve') and resource ('basic metadata for a Google Docs, Sheets, or Drive file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'inspect_sheet_images' or 'read_google_doc', which might also retrieve metadata, so it doesn't achieve full differentiation.

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 doesn't mention when it's appropriate (e.g., for quick metadata checks) or when not to use it (e.g., for detailed content access), nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'read_google_doc' or 'export_google_file' as alternatives for different needs.

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