dms_details

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behaviors. It transparently lists the output fields (name, id, URL, path, doc type, source, compliance mapping scaffold), but does not specify read-only nature, error handling (e.g., what if id/name is missing), or performance impacts. The lack of any behavioral caveats is mitigated by the clear, non-destructive implied purpose, yielding a solid 4.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get a details card for one document') and efficiently lists the output fields. No waste, every word adds value. Perfect score.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating all expected return fields. The tool complexity is low (2 optional params, no enums, no nested objects) and the description fully covers what an agent needs to know to select and invoke this tool correctly. Complete for this context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that parameters (id or name) are alternative identification methods ('by drive id or name') and describes the output this input unlocks. It clarifies the purpose of the parameters beyond the schema's generic 'Drive file/folder id' and 'Document name (exact or partial)', earning a 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a details card for one document.' It specifies the identification methods (drive id or name) and lists the exact fields returned (name, id, URL, path, doc type, source, compliance mapping scaffold). This level of specificity distinguishes it from siblings like dms_search (searching) and dms_list (listing), achieving a high purpose clarity score.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves details for a single document, implying use when you need comprehensive metadata for one document. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context signals (no required params, two optional identifiers) suggest flexibility. A slight deduction for lacking direct 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance.

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