drive_list_files

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is declarative. The description repeats 'Read-only' (redundant with annotations) but adds the useful context that a connected Google account is required. No pagination, rate limit, or ordering behavior is disclosed beyond what schema describes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the response shape, then two short constraints. The inline response-shape notation is unusual but compact. Slightly awkward mixing of prose and shape notation, but no wasted sentences.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, includes the response shape, and mentions the auth prerequisite. It only lacks explicit discrimination from sibling listing/read tools, which is minor given the distinct verb and resource.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, query, and folder_id fully. The description does not add syntax or format hints beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (files on the user's Google Drive), and distinguishes itself from siblings like drive_read_file, drive_upload_file, drive_delete_file by making clear this is a listing operation. The inline shape of the response further concretizes what 'files' means.

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 ('List files on the user's Google Drive', with query/folder_id filtering described in the schema), but it never says when to use this vs drive_read_file or list_folders. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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