drive_list_shared_drives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds membership scoping ('the user is a member of') and the relationship to other tools, but does not explicitly state read-only semantics, pagination behavior, or potential errors. Since 'List' clearly implies a read operation, the transparency is adequate but not enriched.

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 primary action and immediately followed by the practical use of the results. No redundant information, every sentence 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?

The tool is simple and there is no output schema, but the description gives enough information for an agent to understand the result type (drive IDs) and how to chain it. It does not describe the full response structure, but the core purpose and downstream usage are covered, making it nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no new parameter details, but it does explain how the output (drive IDs) maps to parameters of other tools, which is helpful context. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists Shared Drives the user is a member of, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on the drive listing and explicitly referencing how the results feed into drive_list_files and drive_search_files.

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, actionable usage guidance: use the returned drive IDs as folderId for drive_list_files or as driveId for drive_search_files. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool's output, and implies the tool is the entry point for browsing/scoping shared drives.

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