get_drive_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing that file results include current version, size, MIME type, and download URL when available, which goes beyond annotation information. No contradictions.

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 two sentences long, with the primary action and key constraint in the first sentence, and additional detail about file results in the second. No extraneous information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 presence of annotations and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and locator constraints. It could briefly mention that folder results may not include version/MIME, but the current phrasing ('File results include...') implies this distinction is understood. Overall, complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 each parameter described as 'a string that will be trimmed.' The description adds semantic value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of path and itemId (provide only one locator) and emphasizing that drive is required. This reduces ambiguity.

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 retrieves a single drive item (folder or file) using either itemId or path. This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_drive_items (list multiple items) or get_drive (get drive metadata). The inclusion of what file results contain 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 explicitly instructs to 'Provide only one locator,' guiding the agent to supply either path or itemId, not both. However, it does not elaborate on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search or list operations, leaving a minor gap in usage context.

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