list_drive_file_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of output fields (current version marker, specific fields) provides minor behavioral context. No contradictions, but no extra disclosure about side effects or limitations beyond annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential output details. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.

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's straightforward purpose (listing versions), the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the resolution method, output fields, and current version marking. No gaps identified.

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 input schema descriptions are generic ('a string that will be trimmed'), but the tool's description explains that the file is resolved by id or path, adding meaningful context to the 'file' parameter. The 'drive' parameter's role could be clearer, but overall the description compensates for the schema's lack of specificity.

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 versions'), resource ('Drive file'), resolution method ('by file id or file path'), and output details (marks current version, includes blob id, size, MIME type, lastModified, download URL). It distinguishes this from sibling list tools like list_drive_items and other related 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?

While the description implies use for version retrieval, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., restore_drive_file_version). No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name.

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