gdrive_read_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses supported file types and automatic conversion behavior, and flags a size limitation. It does not mention return format or error cases, but for a read operation it offers substantial behavioral context beyond the bare name.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supported formats and an explicit alternative. Every sentence contributes value with no 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the caller gets back. It implies text/structured data but does not specify return format (e.g., raw text, JSON, binary). It also does not mention behavior for unsupported file types. This leaves a notable gap for a read operation.

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 has one parameter (fileId) with description 'ID of the file to read' and 100% schema coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 opens with 'Read file contents from Google Drive' which is a specific verb+resource. It further differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming gdrive_read_large_file for large files and outlining supported formats (PDF, Excel, Google Docs/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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance and an alternative: 'For very large files (>20MB) or partial reading, use gdrive_read_large_file instead.' This gives a clear exclusion criterion and names the alternative tool.

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