List Google Drive files

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the scope limitation (only app-created files due to drive.file scope) and mentioning pagination, which is important behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. It is efficient but could combine the last two sentences for even greater conciseness. No wasted words, but not maximally compact.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, scope, filter options, and pagination. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a list tool with good structured fields, it is reasonably 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% with all parameters described. The description repeats the filter options in a slightly grouped manner but adds no new details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without significant added value.

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 'files & folders Hermoso created in the user's Google Drive', and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_drive_file or save_to_drive by explaining the scope limitation (drive.file scope only exposes app-created files).

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 guidance on filter options (query, folderId, onlyFolders) and pagination with pageToken, making it clear when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the context and sibling list imply it's the primary listing tool for Drive files.

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