drive_getCopies a remote file into a local writable directory, optionally overwriting existing files.
Copy remote file into writable roots. Prompts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dest | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| remote_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's implicit write behavior adds nothing new. The 'Prompts.' hint suggests an interactive confirmation step, but this is too vague to be useful and does not disclose consequences like overwrite behavior or error handling. No contradiction with annotations, but minimal added transparency.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The fragment 'Prompts.' is poorly structured and adds confusion. It does not front-load key usage information, and every word should earn its place; here they do not.
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 tool with three parameters and no parameter documentation, this description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of 'writable roots', what 'Prompts' means, how overwrite works, or any return behavior. Even with an output schema present, the operational context is missing, making it impossible for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not mention remote_path, dest, or overwrite at all. It provides zero semantic meaning for any of the three parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on what each field expects.
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 ('Copy remote file into writable roots') which conveys a clear verb and resource, but the phrase 'writable roots' is ambiguous and the trailing 'Prompts.' is confusing. It does not clearly differentiate from siblings like download_file or drive_list, and the mention of prompting is unexplained.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. The description gives no context about when copying a remote file is preferable over other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.