gdrive_list_folder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clarifies that folder_id is optional and preferred, that folder_name can be a human-readable name, and that this tool is not the recursive listing variant. It stops short of describing edge-case behavior like when neither argument is supplied, but the core behavioral intent is clear.

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 tightly organized into labeled sections: main purpose, args, discovery workflow, and sibling alternatives. Every sentence contributes useful information and no filler is present.

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 two-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers lookup methods, the recommended discovery flow, and differentiation from siblings. The only notable gap is that both parameters are optional in the schema, and the description does not explicitly state what happens if neither is provided.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning for the parameters. It explains folder_name as a listing key with an example, and folder_id as an optional stable ID originating from gdrive_search. This adds value beyond the bare schema property titles, though it could more explicitly state precedence when both are provided.

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 action ('List files in a Google Drive folder') with two clearly named lookup modes (folder_name or folder_id). It also distinguishes itself from nearby sibling tools by naming gdrive_list_folder_recursive as the subfolder-inclusive alternative.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: use gdrive_search first when the exact folder is unknown. It also names sibling tools and their specific use cases, so an agent knows when to use this tool versus gdrive_list_folder_recursive or gdrive_read_file.

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