drive_get_file

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Get metadata', implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not detail what metadata is returned, authentication requirements beyond the email param, or any side effects. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded. No redundant information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., 'Returns metadata for a specific file or folder.') but effective.

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?

For a simple read operation with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and basic usage. The distinction from drive_read_file (content) is clear. Completeness is adequate.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not describe parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get metadata for a specific file or folder', using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('metadata'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_list_files and drive_search_files by targeting a single file/folder by ID.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a fileId is needed but does not provide when-not or mention alternative tools. Agents must infer usage from the fileId parameter documentation.

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