get-drive-list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds useful context by naming the returned fields (drive ID, name, type, project info), which substitutes for the absent output schema, but says nothing about ordering, limits, or result size.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then organized under two short bold headers. The examples are somewhat repetitive with the enum descriptions in the schema, but each line is short and the structure makes scanning easy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. Remaining gaps are pagination and ordering behavior, which an agent listing drives might reasonably want.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by showing how 'type' and 'scope' combine in practice and by stating that 'private' is the default drive type. The conditional pairing of scope with type=project is reinforced with worked examples rather than only the schema's parenthetical note.

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 list of accessible Dooray drives') and scopes it to drives rather than files, which distinguishes it from the many drive-file siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the resource boundary is unambiguous.

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 Drive Types section plus three concrete request examples give clear context for when to use each mode (personal vs. private project vs. public project). It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or which sibling to pick instead.

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