Get Drive File Permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. It merely restates the read-only nature implied by the name and annotations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action word 'Gets' and clearly identifies the resource and scope. It wastes no words and is 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 simplicity (2 parameters, both well-documented in schema), the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations covering read-only and idempotent properties, the description is adequate. It could mention that the file must be accessible by the authenticated user, but the score remains high due to the richness of other structured fields.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters have adequate descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any further semantics or clarifications about parameter usage, format, or dependencies beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it retrieves detailed metadata including sharing permissions from a Google Drive file. The verb 'gets' combined with the resource 'drive file permissions' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_drive_file_public_access' (which checks public access status) and 'set_drive_file_permissions' (which modifies permissions).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with 'check_drive_file_public_access' or 'get_file_metadata'. The agent receives no context about scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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