drive_list_files

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination behavior (reads across pages, capped at 1000, default 20), result ordering follows the Drive API query order, fields may be redacted by privacy settings, and it is 'Auto-approved'. It stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the routing sentence is tight, but the mid-sentence enumeration of twelve return fields is dense and partly duplicates the informative clauses around it. Still, every sentence carries content, so it is efficient if slightly over-packed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return value — and it does so thoroughly, enumerating the field set, the page/cap behavior, ordering, and privacy redaction. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret results correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the max_results default/cap and the q-syntax nature of query rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search Google Drive and return matching file metadata') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming drive_list_folder and drive_get_file_metadata with the conditions that select them. An agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

Names two alternatives and the exact condition for each: drive_list_folder for one folder's children, drive_get_file_metadata when the file id is already known. Nothing is left to inference.

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