Team drive: export

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: it writes to a local JSONL artifact (consistent with readOnlyHint=false) while not modifying the source (consistent with destructiveHint=false), and frames the output as deterministic. It does not mention idempotency behavior despite idempotentHint=false, which is a minor gap.

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 dense sentences with the core action front-loaded. The 'Check coverage and parser warnings first' clause is slightly terse but earns its place as a workflow hint.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the source-safety and versioning constraints. It stops short of clarifying where the artifact lands or how repeated exports behave, which would round out a file-writing tool.

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 67% and both required params (file_id, expected_version) are documented in the schema. The description reinforces the versioning constraint via 'explicitly versioned file' but adds no syntax or format detail for the `format` constant. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: exports indexed segments of an explicitly versioned file into a local JSONL artifact. This distinguishes it from read/inspect by emphasizing 'all segments' and the versioned, deterministic nature. It does not name a sibling, so not a 5.

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?

"Check coverage and parser warnings first" implies using inspect/status before exporting, but the description does not name those tools or state when-not to use this one. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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