drive_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: requires authentication and warns that 'the exact shape is not guaranteed.' This goes beyond safety/read-only to set return-format expectations, which is not conveyed by 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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains return richness and caveat, the third gives exclusion guidance. Each sentence earns its place, no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, read-only single-path tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, how the output behaves, and what not to use it for. It is fully self-contained for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, including a clear description with an example and format constraint. The tool description does not add further parameter specifics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get full metadata for a single Proton Drive file or folder, including latest revision details.' It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (single file/folder) and explicitly differentiates from drive_list by noting it returns richer data ('raw CLI node object').

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Use when you need details drive_list doesn't return (e.g. revision info) for one specific known path.' Also gives a clear when-not-to-use with an alternative: 'Do not use to enumerate a folder's children — use drive_list instead.' This meets the highest standard.

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