drive_docs_info

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: read-only nature, YAML output format, the revision_id/writeControl.requiredRevisionId write-guard semantics, and that revision_id is absent when the caller lacks edit access. These are non-obvious behavioral traits beyond anything structured data provides.

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 and scope are front-loaded, and the dense revision_id sentence earns its place by explaining the write-guard mechanism. It is slightly heavy for an info tool, with the trailing 'Mirrors omni-dev drive docs info' and 'Output is YAML' being minor, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully describes the return shape (title, revision id, named ranges, per-tab heading text with index range, paragraph/table/section-break counts) and the serialization format (YAML). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (account, document_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail; revision_id described here is an output, not an input. 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 ('Show') and resource (a document's title, revision id, structural outline) and precisely enumerates what is returned versus excluded ('no full body text'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling drive_docs_read, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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 the alternative explicitly ('Use drive_docs_read for the full element list with every index') and implies the condition selecting this tool: a lightweight outline without the full body. It also declares 'Read-only', giving the agent a clear usage context.

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