drive_list_folder

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only DIRECT children are returned (non-recursive) and that both My Drive and shared drives are supported, but says nothing about pagination behavior, permission requirements, or that this is a read-only listing.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence contributes (result composition, scope, root default). No filler or repetition.

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?

For a 9-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, what is included, supported corpora, and the root default. The main gap is pagination/enumeration behavior, which the schema only partially implies.

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 89%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including defaults and bounds. The description adds only the root-default behavior for folder_id_or_url, which is meaningful but exceeds the baseline by little.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the direct children of a Google Drive folder') and clarifies the result includes folders, files, and shortcuts. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from the sibling drive_search_files, but the scope statement is unambiguous.

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?

Tells the agent that omitting folder_id_or_url lists My Drive's root, which is useful operational context, but offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never mentions the sibling drive_search_files as the alternative for querying by content. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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