drive_list_files

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 explains the default folderId behavior, the ability to use a Shared Drive ID, and points to a sibling tool for discovery. This adds meaningful context beyond what schema provides, though it does not mention pagination or result structure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. It is concise, well-structured, and free of irrelevant detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key usage contexts: default root, shared drive top-level, and sibling tool reference. It does not explain pagination or result contents, but the schema already documents pageToken and maxResults, so the description is reasonably complete for selection and invocation.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds valuable semantics for folderId: it explains the default My Drive root behavior and that a Shared Drive ID can be used for its top level. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description and helps the agent use the parameter correctly.

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 function: 'List files in a Google Drive folder.' It specifies the resource (files) and the action (list), and distinguishes itself from siblings like drive_search_files by focusing on folder-based listing. It also clarifies default behavior and shared drive usage, making the purpose 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?

The description provides guidance on when to use the tool: listing files in a folder, with default to My Drive root, and provides explicit instructions for Shared Drive top-level listing. It also references a sibling tool (drive_list_shared_drives) for discovering IDs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search_files or other alternatives, so it misses some comparative guidance.

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