drive_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool performs semantic search and returns a ranked list of files, but omits behavioral details such as whether search is real-time, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (4 parameters including a nested filter object) and absence of an output schema, the description could be more complete. It does not explain return format, pagination, scope in relation to workspace_id, or how filter sub-properties interact. Adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 75%; the description adds little beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'top-N' hints at top_k). The filter object's sub-properties lack descriptions, and the overall parameter understanding relies heavily on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'semantic search across your org's artifacts in AgentDrive' and 'returns the top-N most relevant files', specifying the verb (search), resource (artifacts), and scope (org-wide). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like drive_read (single file) and drive_list (list without search).

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 explicitly advises to 'Use this BEFORE writing similar artifacts to avoid duplication and surface prior context', providing a clear use case. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other uses or name alternatives, it gives actionable guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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