list_drive_file_comments

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, confirming safe read. The description adds that results are sorted by creation date (oldest first), which is not in annotations. 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and key details. Every word adds value with no 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 tool has 4 parameters, schema coverage 100%, output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, locator choice, sorting order. It does not detail permissions or output structure, but output schema covers the latter. Complete enough for a filtered list 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes parameters. The description adds minor value by reinforcing that only one locator should be used, but this is already enforced by schema constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 comments on a Drive file resolved by filePath or fileId', specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_drive_file_comment' and 'update_drive_file_comment' which imply different operations.

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 includes 'Provide only one locator', guiding the agent not to provide both filePath and fileId together. This is explicit usage guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as when to use 'list_comments' for other contexts.

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