Google Drive MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, rate limits, response format, or whether it's idempotent. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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, direct sentence with zero waste—it states the action, resource, and key input concisely. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, error scenarios, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively, but it falls short.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'fileId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's used to fetch details, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 detailed information') and resource ('about a specific file by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_files' by focusing on single-file details rather than listing multiple files. However, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 when you need file details for a known file ID, contrasting with 'list_files' for browsing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites like authentication, or error handling for invalid IDs. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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