drive_discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a key behavioral disclosure: 'Operational drive tools are hidden until discovered — call this first,' which explains a non-obvious discovery behavior not captured by annotations. It does not mention return format or pagination, but for a simple list tool, this is acceptable.

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 starts with a clear purpose but then includes an extremely long list of operation names. While the list is informative, it makes the description verbose and not concise. The key instructions ('call this first') are front-loaded, but the enumeration could be trimmed or moved to output examples for a cleaner structure.

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 (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: it lists operations, explains the hidden-tool mechanism, and tells the agent to call the desired tool by name. It doesn't explain how the query parameter interacts with the list, but the schema covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's purpose.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'query' with its description 'Keyword to filter the returned operations.' The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, so it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for parameter semantics.

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's purpose: 'List the available drive operations.' It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (drive operations), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the drive domain. It also explains the discovery mechanism, which clarifies its role.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'call this first, then call the tool you need by name.' This clearly indicates it precedes other drive operations. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the sibling discovery tools (e.g., gmail_discover) are implied by context, and the 'call this first' instruction is strong usage guidance.

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