drive_export

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states the basic action and formats, omitting whether the operation is read-only, what the return payload is (binary/base64), whether authentication is required, or how unsupported file types are handled. This fails to meet the transparency burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The format list is efficient, but the brevity sacrifices essential detail, making it more under-specified than truly concise. Still, it earns its place as a clear one-liner.

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?

The tool has two required parameters and an output schema, but no annotations. The description is too sparse: it does not explain exact MIME type usage, eligible source file types, or the nature of the output. While the output schema covers return values, other contextual aspects remain unaddressed, leaving the description incomplete for a moderately complex export tool.

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 description partially clarifies mime_type by listing example formats, but it does not specify whether full MIME type strings (e.g., 'application/pdf') are required, potentially misleading an agent to pass 'PDF'. It also gives no guidance on file_id, and with 0% schema description coverage, the lack of precise parameter semantics is a significant gap.

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 identifies the action (export), the resource (Google Workspace file), and the target output formats (PDF, DOCX, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_read_file that read content natively, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope limits.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the source file must be a Google Docs/Sheets/Slides file), nor does it contrast with drive_read_file or drive_copy_file. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'export'.

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