list_drive_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scoping behavior, how folder_id is interpreted relative to drives, and the return type as a formatted list. It does not mention rate limits or explicit read-only status, but the read-only nature is implicit and the auth context (user_google_email) is included.

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?

The description is detailed but well-structured, starting with the main purpose and conditional rules, followed by an Args block. It is slightly longer than necessary, but every sentence adds useful information, and is appropriately front-loaded with the core listing behavior.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (shared drives, conditional folder scoping, multiple parameters), the description covers all essential aspects: parameters, return format, and behavioral nuances. The output schema exists and the return is described, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section fully documents each parameter, including default values, relationships (e.g., folder_id relative to drive_id), and conditional logic for corpora. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema property names and types.

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?

The description starts with 'Lists files and folders, supporting shared drives', which is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly differentiates from sibling search tools like 'search_drive_files'. It also explains drive_id and folder_id semantics, fully conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

The description provides explicit conditional behavior for when drive_id is specified vs not, and explains include_items_from_all_drives. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools such as search_drive_files, so it stops short of naming alternatives. Clear context is present, but exclusions are not.

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