drive_files_get

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, marking it as a safe read. The description adds that 'Shared drive files are supported automatically,' which is a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. However, no other side effects, permissions, or limitations are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, essential information front-loaded: action and resource in the first sentence, special feature in the second. Every word serves a purpose.

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 read-only metadata retrieval tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and an important edge case (shared drives). A minor gap is lack of mention about return format or optional fields usage, but overall sufficient.

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 both parameters (fileId, fields) well-described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning, examples, or clarification beyond what the schema already provides.

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 starts with a verb ('Get') and specifies the resource ('a file's metadata') and method ('by ID'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like drive_files_list, drive_files_download, etc., by focusing on metadata retrieval for a single file.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., drive_files_list for listing, drive_files_get vs drive_files_download for content vs metadata). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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