drive_files_get

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 mentions that shared drive files are supported, which adds useful context about scope. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what metadata is returned (e.g., format, fields). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a clarifying detail in the second. Both sentences earn their place by specifying the action and an important behavioral note (shared drive support), with zero wasted words or redundancy.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a key scope detail (shared drives), but lacks information on return values, error cases, or authentication needs. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer these aspects, making the description minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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%, with both parameters (fileId and fields) fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the fileId is used to retrieve metadata and mentioning shared drive support, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a file's metadata by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like drive_files_list or drive_files_download by specifying metadata retrieval rather than listing or downloading. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with drive_files_get's exact siblings beyond mentioning shared drive support.

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 implies usage by stating 'by ID' and mentioning shared drive support, suggesting this is for retrieving metadata of specific files rather than listing all files. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like drive_files_list for browsing or drive_files_download for content, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the ID requirement.

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