List Recent Files

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by specifying that results span all accessible drives and exclude trashed items, enhancing behavioral understanding beyond the 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, well-structured sentence of 20 words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and 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 the simple tool with 3 parameters, existing output schema, and detailed annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers key aspects (scope, exclusion), though it does not explicitly mention pagination or sorting order, which are implicit.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema already provides adequate meaning for 'page_size' and 'page_token'. The undocmented 'user_google_email' parameter could benefit from clarification, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's coverage.

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 the user's most recently modified files across all drives and excludes trashed items. The verb 'Lists' and resource specification make the purpose unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_drive_items' and 'search_files'.

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 implies usage for retrieving recently modified files but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_drive_items' or 'search_files'. No when-not-to-use or alternative names are provided.

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