drive_files_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It adds that shared drive files are included automatically, which is helpful. However, it does not discuss error handling, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior beyond the schema. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds key behavioral traits. No fluff 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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., default fields, pagination structure). It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about the return format. The tool is simple but incomplete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds that the 'q' parameter supports search queries, but this is already explicit in the schema. No additional meaning or context is provided for other parameters.

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 'List files in Google Drive' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like drive_files_get (single file) and drive_files_create (create files) by focusing on listing. The mention of search queries and shared drive files adds specificity.

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 mentions search query support and automatic inclusion of shared drive files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like drive_files_get or drive_files_list with specific filters. There is no guidance on when not to use it.

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