drive_get_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists return fields and does not mention permissions, error cases, access scope, or API behaviors. While 'Get metadata' implies a read operation, it offers no detail about what happens for inaccessible files or auth requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence that begins with the action verb and packs relevant details without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return scope. It is sufficient for an agent to select it, though it omits exact return structure and error behavior.

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%: both fileId and accountId have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata for a Google Drive file') and enumerates expected fields (name, size, type, owners, sharing status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_get_file_content or drive_download_file, which fetch content.

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 metadata framing implies use when you need file properties rather than content, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description does not state exclusions, such as 'to download contents, use drive_download_file'.

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