drive_list_shared_drives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about pagination behavior, permission/auth requirements, result limits, or what happens when the account has no shared drives. For a zero-annotation tool this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb and resource lead the sentence and the scope qualifier follows immediately.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is too thin. It omits pagination semantics, the shape of the returned drives, and how the account selection interacts with the email parameter, which an agent needs to call this correctly in a multi-account setup.

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 75%, so most parameters (email, query, page_size) are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and page_token has no description anywhere.

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 (List) and resource (shared drives) with a scoping qualifier (the selected Google account can access), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like drive_list_folder or drive_search_files. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource 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?

No when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternatives such as drive_search_files or drive_list_folder. The phrase 'selected Google account' weakly implies the email parameter context, but nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus another drive listing/search tool.

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