List Drive files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses ordering ('newest first') and the optional query, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, default page size, whether the query syntax is the Drive API query language, or what happens with large result sets. For a read-only list operation, the lack of destructive behavior is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List files in Drive') and adds the key behavioral detail ('newest first') and the optional query. Every word earns its place; no filler 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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the basic action and ordering, but an agent might need to know pagination behavior, default page size, and how the query parameter interacts with the Drive API. Given the tool's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, a 3 is fair.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the 'newest first' ordering context and the optionality of the query, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files in Drive'), and adds ordering ('newest first') and an optional query. It is clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like google_drive_get or google_drive_download; the verb 'list' and the mention of 'files' make the distinction reasonably inferable.

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 usage context: listing files with optional query and default ordering. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., google_drive_get for a single file, google_drive_search if it existed), nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites like account selection. The 'optional query' hint gives some context but no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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