gdrive_list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and optional filters; it says nothing about pagination, default folder behavior, ordering, whether only metadata is returned, or any limits such as max page_size. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the core action, the resource, and the key optional filters in minimal space. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list operation with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can infer that this returns a list of files and that folder_id/mime_type are optional filters. However, parameter semantics are thin, there is no usage guidance relative to sibling gdrive_search, and behavioral details like pagination and defaults are missing. It is complete enough for basic invocation but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'folder or MIME type,' which maps to folder_id and mime_type, but it does not explain the format parameter, the meaning of an empty folder_id, page_size semantics, or expected values. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description leaves important semantics unaddressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List files in Google Drive'), with optional filtering by folder or MIME type. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gdrive_read_file, gdrive_create_doc, gdrive_update_doc, and even gdrive_search by presenting a list-oriented operation. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'List files in Google Drive' implies the tool is for directory-style listing, and the optional filters offer some context for narrowing the result set. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over gdrive_search, what the 'search' tool is for, or any exclusions/prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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