drive_files_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that shared drive files are included automatically, which is useful context not in the schema. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination behavior beyond the pageSize parameter, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response format looks like. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with only two sentences, both of which earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context about search and shared drives. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it efficiently front-loaded.

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 list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does. However, without annotations and no output schema, it should ideally explain more about the return format, pagination behavior, and any limitations. The description covers the essentials but leaves the agent to infer important behavioral aspects.

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 mentions the 'q' parameter for search queries, adding context beyond the schema's technical description. However, with 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add significant semantic value for the other three parameters (pageSize, fields, orderBy) beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List files') and resource ('in Google Drive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other drive_files_* siblings by focusing on listing/searching rather than operations like copy, create, or delete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like calendar_events_list or gmail_messages_list beyond the Google Drive context.

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 some usage context by mentioning support for search queries and automatic inclusion of shared drive files, which helps understand when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like drive_files_get for retrieving specific files. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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