Team drive: job_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds a genuinely useful interpretive caveat that a completed scan can still contain failed or unsupported files. That non-obvious behavior (success status != clean result) is real added value beyond structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one caveat that matters. Zero waste.

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 not be explained, and the description covers what data the tool surfaces plus the failure caveat. Minor gap: nothing about how to get a job_id or any pagination limits.

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?

One optional parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only gives type and maxLength. The description partially compensates by framing the parameter as 'specified' vs 'current', implying omission returns the current job, but gives no guidance on where to obtain a job_id.

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 (read) and resource (indexing job progress, coverage, failures), which is clearly distinct from siblings like team_drive_cancel or team_drive_list. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast, 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?

'Read current or specified indexing job progress' implies the job_id is optional and you get the current job when omitted, which is useful implied usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus team_drive_status or team_drive_refresh.

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