infomaniak_list_drives

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds behavioral scope by specifying 'every kDrive the account has access to', which clarifies that no filtering is applied and results include all accessible drives. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile, though it doesn't describe pagination or return format.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, zero unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete. It clearly states what it lists, and the output schema handles return details.

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%, and the schema already thoroughly describes account_id, including its optionality and default behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema fully compensates.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'every kDrive the account has access to', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_drive_files (which lists files within a drive) and infomaniak_get_drive_full (which gets details of a specific drive). No ambiguity.

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 description states what the tool does but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The scope ('every kDrive the account has access to') implies it's the tool for enumerating drives, but no alternative tools are mentioned or exclusions provided.

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