Get File Metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'single file by ID' scoping, which is useful, but does not describe authentication requirements, return format, or potential errors. Since annotations carry most of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no filler. It directly states the action, target, and identifier, earning its place without waste.

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?

For a simple metadata lookup with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, the missing guidance on user_google_email and no explicit tie to sibling tools prevent a perfect score. Overall, it provides enough context for basic correct usage.

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 only 50% (fileId is described, user_google_email is not). The description mentions file ID but adds no further meaning for user_google_email. It does not compensate for the missing schema description, leaving parameter semantics incomplete.

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 a specific action ('Returns metadata') on a specific resource ('a single Google Drive file'), identified by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_file_content' or 'download_file_content', which deal with file content rather than metadata.

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 fetching metadata when you have a file ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Given the simple scope, context is reasonably clear, but there is no direct guidance on alternate tools.

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