gdrive_folder_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'display' and provides no information about side effects, performance implications, authorization requirements, or whether it is read-only. The description does not contradict annotations (since none exist), but it is too terse to convey important behavioral traits.

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 with no wasted words. Every part—subject, verb, and output format—is meaningful and directly contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

The tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the output as a 'tree format' but does not elaborate on the actual return type (e.g., JSON, string), error behavior, or depth/item limits. While the schema covers parameter details, the missing output schema places a burden on the description to explain return values, which it only partially does.

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 provides descriptions for all four optional parameters (folderId, maxDepth, maxItems, includeFiles), resulting in 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 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 the tool's function: 'Display the entire folder structure of Google Drive in a tree format.' It uses a specific verb ('display'), identifies the resource ('folder structure'), and specifies the output format ('tree format'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that search/read files or update sheets.

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 the tool's use case (displaying folder hierarchy) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. No mention of alternatives like gdrive_search, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer when to invoke it.

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