get_drive_file_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves metadata and permissions, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the user lacks access. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by separate sections for Args and Returns. It's front-loaded with the main functionality and avoids unnecessary details. However, the 'Returns' section could be more concise by integrating with the purpose statement, and some sentences are slightly verbose.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to fully explain return values, but it still misses key context like authentication or error handling.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly describes the two parameters, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., expected email pattern or file ID structure) or provide examples. With two parameters and low schema coverage, this offers basic but incomplete semantic context.

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: 'Gets detailed metadata about a Google Drive file including sharing permissions.' It specifies the verb ('Gets'), resource ('Google Drive file'), and scope ('including sharing permissions'), which is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_drive_file_public_access' or 'get_drive_shareable_link', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'check_drive_file_public_access' or 'get_drive_shareable_link'. The usage is implied by the purpose statement alone, with no explicit context for selection.

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