drive_get_file_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the truncation default (10,000 chars), the metadata returned (fileName, totalSize, truncated flag), and redirects users away for binary/large files. Missing are error conditions or auth specifics, but for a preview tool this is solid transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by output summary and alternative guidance. No filler or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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 preview tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it returns (truncated text + metadata), default behavior, and when to use other tools. The parameter schema handles input details, so nothing essential is missing.

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% with each parameter already described (e.g., maxChars 'Maximum characters to return (default: 10000)'). The description reiterates the default but does not add meaning beyond the schema. Meets the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a preview of file content from Google Drive'), establishes a default truncation length, and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming drive_get_full_file_content and drive_download_file. This makes the tool's scope and intent unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'For full content use drive_get_full_file_content. For large/binary files prefer drive_download_file to save to disk instead.' This clearly states when to use this tool vs alternatives, exceeding the baseline requirement.

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