infomaniak_list_drive_file_access_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds 'Read-only' (redundant) and 'admin inventory', which hints at admin-level access requirements but provides no new behavioral details such as pagination, output format, or rate limits. With annotations covering the core safety traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for action and scope, one for use case. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and easy to scan.

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 simple nature of the tool (list operation, two well-documented parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema present), the description is complete. It clarifies the resource scope (file/folder user access) and the administrative context without needing to explain return values since an output schema exists.

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 100%, with both parameters (file_id, drive_id) fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and the resource ('user access entries for a kDrive file or folder'), and differentiates from sibling tools like list_drive_users (drive-level) and list_drive_file_access_teams/invitations by specifying 'user access' scoped to a file/folder. It also gives the admin use case.

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 'Read-only admin inventory for file permission review' provides a clear use context: admins reviewing file permissions. It implies this tool is for per-file user access, distinguishing it from drive-level user listing, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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