Get Drive file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only and limited to metadata (not file content), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authentication, error handling, or account selection, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose directly with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the schema's full parameter coverage, the description is complete. It specifies the action (get metadata), the target (single file), and the required identifier (ID), which adequately defines the tool's behavior without needing an output schema.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (fileId and account) with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond implying that fileId identifies the target file, so it does not significantly enhance the schema's semantics.

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 the action ('Get metadata'), the resource ('single file'), and the scope ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like google_drive_list or google_drive_update, making the purpose 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 description provides a clear usage context: the tool should be used when you have a specific file ID and need metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the 'by ID' condition effectively signals when to use this tool versus listing or updating files.

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