gdrive_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication identity (service account email, Cloud Run or key file context) and the diagnostic output (spreadsheet titles and tab names), and explains the permission-error scenario. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, but the word 'Check' strongly implies it — a minor 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by output details and then the critical 'Run this first' instruction. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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 a simple diagnostic tool with an empty input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers purpose, when to run, what it returns, and how to resolve a common error. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('connector can reach both Google Sheets') and clarifies that it reports authentication identity plus spreadsheet metadata. It distinguishes itself as a diagnostic/preflight tool from any operational siblings, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Run this first' and provides the exact remediation path if a permission error occurs ('share both spreadsheets with the service account email it prints'). This gives clear when-to-use and what-to-do-on-failure guidance without requiring inference.

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