drive_get_file_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return contract and confirms folders are supported, but it does not disclose operational details such as permissions requirements, error behavior, or how 'full metadata' interacts with the listed fields. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. The return field list is directly useful for an agent deciding whether this tool satisfies the current task.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing, but the core purpose, input, and return behavior are clearly conveyed.

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?

The tool description never explains the required file_id parameter, its source, or its format. Although the nested schema contains a useful description, the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, and the description itself adds no parameter semantics to compensate for that gap.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('a single Drive file or folder'), and the output ('full metadata'). This distinguishes it from siblings such as drive_read_file_content and drive_search_files without needing to open the schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that file_id typically comes from drive_search_files, nor that file content should be retrieved with drive_read_file_content. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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