drive_list_permissions

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'List' which implies read-only, but does not confirm no side effects, mention authorization needs, or describe the response format. For a listing operation, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's action. No superfluous words. For a simple list tool, this is optimally concise.

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 should characterize what the output represents (e.g., list of permission objects). It fails to do so. The tool is simple but the description lacks completeness by not hinting at the structure or scope of the returned permissions.

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 covers 100% of parameters (fileId) with a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 it lists sharing permissions on a file, using a specific verb and resource. It implies a read operation for all permissions, which helps distinguish from drive_get_permission (single permission). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools, so a perfect score is not achieved.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like drive_share or drive_get_permission. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., file must be owned by user) or scenarios where listing is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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