gdrive_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic search intent and does not mention read-only behavior, authentication requirements, default limits, or how full-text search interacts with metadata search.

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?

A single sentence with no filler or redundancy. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin for reliable invocation. An agent cannot determine how to construct an effective search, what format values are valid, or whether mime_type filtering is supported. The output schema covers return values, but the input behavior is underspecified.

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. It hints at query mapping to file name and full_text mapping to content, but it does not explain limit, format, mime_type, or how the parameters combine. Only partial compensation for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('Google Drive'), and the two search dimensions ('file name or full-text content'). It is distinct enough from siblings like gdrive_list_files, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 usage is implied: an agent would use this tool when it needs to find Drive files by name or content. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over gdrive_list_files or other GDrive siblings, and no exclusions or alternative routes.

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