read_text

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

With no annotations, the description must handle transparency itself. It discloses that the tool may download a file as a side effect and that it returns extracted text, but it does not mention permissions, size limits, file modifications, or failure behavior. Useful but incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence conveys the main action, the conditional download side effect, and supported formats. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, this description covers the essential invocation context: what to pass, what it operates on, what it returns, and which formats are accepted. It does not specify path syntax or edge-case behavior, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides only 'path' with 0% documentation coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating path refers to a Drive file and enumerating accepted formats (pdf, docx, xlsx, txt). It does not clarify path syntax or identifiers, but it gives enough semantic context for the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('return extracted text') and identifies the resource ('Drive file') and supported formats (pdf, docx, xlsx, txt). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like download or search, so it is clear but not strongly differentiated.

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 implies use when text extraction from a Drive file is neededhol, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, especially the nearby download tool. It states a conditional action ('if needed') without specifying the condition.

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