drive_list_revisions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'List file revisions'. It does not reveal whether the operation is read-only (though implied), whether revisions include metadata or content, if there are limits, or if behavior differs by file type. It adds little beyond the verb.

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 filler. The parenthetical '(version history)' adds useful clarification without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly 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?

The output schema exists, so return values are likely covered, but the description is thin for a one-parameter tool. It does not explain what file_id refers to, nor does it provide any context about version history behavior (e.g., ordering, availability, or limitations). The minimal description leaves several practical questions unanswered.

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 schema has one parameter (file_id) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that file_id identifies the file. The name is self-explanatory in context, but the description fails to explicitly link the parameter to the action, so it adds no semantic value.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('file revisions (version history)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_read_file (reads file content) and drive_list_folder (lists folders), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the go-to for version history, nor does it explain any prerequisites or exclusions compared to drive_read_file or drive_search. The agent must infer context solely from the tool name.

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