Team drive: list

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the inventory includes unsupported and failed files, and complete results require paging through all pages rather than stopping at the first response. It does not mention any auth or rate-limit characteristics, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 what is enumerated and what it contains, followed by usage guidance. Dense but every clause carries information; 'scope manifest' and 'evidence use' are slightly domain-jargon-heavy but still interpretable.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a paginated enumeration tool the description doesn't tell the agent when to stop paging or how ordering behaves, and says nothing about the undocumented limit parameter, leaving a few practical gaps.

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%: cursor and prefix are documented in-schema, limit is not. The description says 'page through' but adds no detail on limit semantics, prefix scoping, or cursor handling beyond what the schema already states. 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 and resource: paging through the indexed file inventory, and clarifies the scope by noting it includes unsupported and failed files. It distinguishes from inspection/read siblings implicitly by being a bulk enumeration, but doesn't explicitly contrast with team_drive_search, which is the closest overlapping alternative.

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?

Gives downstream guidance ('use all pages for a scope manifest; verify versions before evidence use') which implies bulk enumeration over spot lookup, but never names team_drive_search or any other sibling as the alternative for targeted retrieval. When-not-to-use this tool 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.