list_folder_contents

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

The annotation provides readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with large folders. However, with the annotation covering the safety aspect, the bar is lower, and the description at least doesn't mislead.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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 that annotations cover the read-only nature and there's an output schema (though not shown), the description provides adequate context for a listing operation. However, with 4 parameters and many sibling listing/search tools, more guidance on usage context would be beneficial for complete agent understanding.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'specific folder' which aligns with folder_id, but provides no additional semantic context about parameter usage or interactions.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('contents of a specific folder in Google Drive'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from other listing tools like 'list_google_docs' or 'list_comments', which would require mentioning it's specifically for Drive folder contents rather than documents or comments.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like 'list_google_docs', 'search_google_docs', 'get_recent_google_docs'), there's no indication of when folder listing is appropriate versus document listing or searching. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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