List Google Drive files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the drive.file scope limitation, that it never exposes the user's entire Drive, and that it only lists files Hermoso created or the user handed over. This is valuable but not exhaustive; no contradiction with 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?

Three sentences carry a lot of signal: scope, use case, filter patterns, pagination, and read-only nature. The most important scoping constraint is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and six optional parameters, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: what is listed, what is not, how to filter, and how to paginate. The remaining parameter details are already fully documented in the input schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing filtering intent ('Filter by query ... folderId ... or onlyFolders:true') and highlighting pagination with pageToken, which helps an agent choose parameter combinations even though the schema already documents each parameter individually.

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 verb and resource ('List the Google Drive files & folders') and clarifies the exact scope Hermoso can reach, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_onedrive_files and get_drive_file. It also gives a concrete use case: finding the id of a user-picked file.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('This is how you find the id of a file the user picked') and gives useful filtering patterns. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, 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.