drive_read_file

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: Docs/Sheets/Slides are converted to Office format before reading, the file is fetched to a temporary path and deleted immediately, and a connected Google account is required. These conversion, transient-storage, and auth details are exactly the context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the conversion behavior, then the temp-file lifecycle. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states the return shape and covers auth and side effects, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain: behavior on unsupported/non-exportable file types and error cases are unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('File id from drive_list_files'). The description adds nothing about file_id itself, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Extract the text) and resource (a Drive file) and even sketches the return shape {filename, kind, text}. This clearly distinguishes it from drive_list_files, drive_upload_file, and drive_delete_file, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 the read use case and notes the prerequisite ('Requires a connected Google account'), and the 'read like any attachment' framing loosely parallels read_attachment. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus drive_list_files or read_attachment, nor any when-not conditions.

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