list_drive_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: listing from My Drive vs shared drives, parameter interactions, default behavior, and return type (str). It is transparent and leaves no critical behavioral traits uncovered.

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 well-structured with clear organization and front-loaded purpose. It could be slightly more concise, as some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated explanations for drive_id scenarios), but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity (6 parameters, shared drive logic) and that an output schema exists, the description is complete: it explains all parameter interactions, default behaviors, and the return format sufficiently for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in input schema), the description adds full meaning to each parameter: user_google_email, folder_id, page_size, drive_id, include_items_from_all_drives, and corpora, including defaults and context.

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, supporting shared drives. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_docs_in_folder and search_drive_files by specifying the resource (drive items) and the action (list), with no ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use drive_id vs not, and the effect of include_items_from_all_drives. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or offer alternatives among siblings, slightly reducing the score.

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