drive_permissions_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses real behavioral traits: the default response omits emailAddress/domain, and there is no separate is-public field so absence must be interpreted carefully. This helps the agent avoid incorrect conclusions about the data.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds practical guidance about auditing, interpreting fields, and constructing the fields parameter.

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 read-only list operation with one required parameter and supporting annotations, the description covers the key behavioral quirks and use cases. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the clear 'list permissions' framing and the field-level detail already present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value for the 'fields' parameter by giving an exact syntax example and explaining why it matters (identifying grantees). It does not add detail for fileId, pageSize, or pageToken, but those are adequately documented in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all permissions on a file.' It further differentiates itself from sibling permission tools by framing the operation as an audit of sharing state, which is distinct from create/update/delete/transfer actions.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'to audit sharing state' and gives a concrete scenario involving type 'anyone' for detecting public access. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the audit framing clearly separates it from mutation tools.

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