gdrive_file_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata (size, dates, type) and mentions 'synced Google Drive,' which hints at scope. However, it does not specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is adequate for a simple metadata fetch but not comprehensive.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the key purpose ('Metadata for a file/folder'). No wasted words; every part is essential.

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 description is brief but critically omits how the tool identifies which file or folder to retrieve metadata for. With zero parameters and no explanation of implicit context (e.g., a currently selected file), an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool. An output schema is absent, but the return values are partially listed. Significant completeness gaps remain.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 noun and verb: 'Metadata for a file/folder' clearly indicates it retrieves metadata. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gdrive_read_file (which reads content) and gdrive_list_files (which lists files) by focusing on size, dates, and type.

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 implicitly states it's for metadata retrieval, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer basic usage.

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