gws.drive.read_file

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the export formats, the 5MB limit, the return of metadata, and crucially the <untrusted-document-content> wrapper with a prompt-injection warning. This goes above and beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise yet information-dense. Each sentence adds value: purpose, export behavior, return fields, and security warning. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 complexity (multiple file formats, size limits, metadata-only returns, security concerns), the description covers all essential aspects. Without an output schema, it adequately explains the return values (file name, MIME type, size, content). The description is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 covers both parameters (fileId and account) with descriptions, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'Read a Google Drive file's content and metadata' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing how Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides are exported (plain text, CSV, text) and the 5MB limit for other file types, which clarifies its broad scope relative to tools like gws.docs.read or gws.sheets.read_range.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does and its limitations (e.g., 5MB limit, binary files return metadata only), which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them, so it stops short of a 5.

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