drive_files_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that the tool is read-only. It adds value by specifying the operation (metadata retrieval) and the shared drive support, which is not captured in the annotations. No contradictions exist between the description and annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no superfluous content. It front-loads the core action and follows up with a useful supplementary detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 a simple get-by-ID operation with two parameters (one required, one optional) and no output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to use it, especially with the annotations covering the read-only nature. It does not explain the return format or default fields, but this is acceptable given the simplicity and the schema already documenting the optional fields parameter.

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 both parameters (fileId and fields) are already well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden of parameter documentation, and the description offers no extra insights.

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: 'Get a file's metadata by ID.' It specifies the action (get), the resource (file's metadata), and the key input (ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_files_list (list files), drive_files_create (create), or drive_files_download (download content). The additional note about shared drive support further clarifies its scope.

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 the primary use case (fetching a single file's metadata by ID) and adds a relevant detail about shared drive files being supported automatically. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it, given the sibling tool names, but it lacks explicit routing guidance.

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