audit_file_counts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the output (per-MIME-type breakdown) and includes a GAM command showing it uses `todrive` to write to a Google Sheet. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions required, or error states, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 well-structured with a title, purpose paragraph, argument list, and an example command. It is front-loaded and essential information appears early. The GAM command is detailed but may be extraneous.

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?

The tool has a (presumably) detailed output schema but no annotations. The description covers purpose and arguments, but lacks behavioral context like prerequisites, error handling, or permission requirements. Given the complexity and zero annotations, more completeness expected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. While it lists arguments with brief explanations (e.g., 'The email of the user who owns the source folder' for user_email), these add only minimal meaning beyond the schema. No details on constraints, formats, or relationships are given.

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 clearly states 'File count and storage summary' and 'Produces a per-MIME-type breakdown of file counts and storage used inside the source folder.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_file_inventory, which likely lists individual files. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 notes it is 'Useful for capacity planning on the destination Shared Drive' and is labeled as 'Step 3', implying a workflow context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct comparisons to alternatives.

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