List Google Drive files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the scope limitation (drive.file scope only exposes created files and user-picked files, never the entire Drive). This sets clear expectations about what data is accessible, which is not visible from annotations alone. No contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the primary purpose, then scope, then usage details. Each sentence earns its place: scope clarification, use case, filter options, pagination, and read-only note. No fluff or redundancy.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: scope, filters, pagination, and read-only nature. It hints at return contents (file ids) but does not describe the response format. Given the annotations and simplicity of the tool, this is fairly complete, though a short note on return shape would make it more complete.

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 100%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions query, folderId, onlyFolders, and pageToken but essentially restates the schema descriptions ('filter by query', 'contents of a folder'). It does not add new semantics, examples, or edge-case behavior beyond what the schema already says. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 tool lists Google Drive files and folders that Hermoso can access, specifying the scope (created files plus user-picked ones) and explicitly distinguishes from the full Drive. It also says this is how to find the id of a user-picked file, giving a concrete use case. This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like get_drive_file or save_to_drive.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (finding file ids, filtering by name/folder/type, paginating) and implies it is for listing rather than other operations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is obvious. The mention of pagination and filters gives practical guidance.

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