get-drive-file-meta

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields (driveId, version, creator, parent info) and explaining why driveId matters, though it does not discuss permissions or error behavior.

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 short, front-loaded blocks (purpose, required param, returns, note) with bold labels and zero filler. Every line conveys actionable information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the return fields and explaining the driveId hand-off for follow-up calls. Input, output, and next-step usage are all covered for this simple single-param tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'fileId'. The description merely restates that fileId is required without adding format or sourcing details, which is the baseline case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get file metadata by file ID') and adds a differentiating scope note ('without needing drive ID'), which separates it from drive-scoped siblings like get-drive-file-list and download-drive-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 'Note' tells the agent what to do next with the returned driveId for download or other drive-scoped operations, giving clear procedural context. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling (e.g., get-attachment-metadata) or state exclusions, so it falls 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.