drive_doc_activity

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully explains behavioral traits: it uses a server-side filter, explains how page budget is spent, details events listing vs counts, the meaning of 'events_truncated', and how sibling events from bulk actions are excluded. It also covers limitations like retention and multi-tenant scenarios.

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 well-structured with clear sections and bullet points, but it is somewhat lengthy. However, every sentence adds value and the key information is front-loaded. It could be slightly more concise, but overall it is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations or output schema), the description covers essential aspects like return fields (owner, doc_title, events, etc.), edge cases (empty results, sibling events), and parameter effects. However, a dedicated output schema or more explicit return value documentation would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'Args' section provides thorough explanations for all five parameters: 'doc_id', 'days', 'domain', 'max_pages', and 'max_events'. It explains their purpose and default behavior, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and default values.

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 provides 'full audit history of one Drive document' including owner, ACL changes, and lifecycle. It also explicitly distinguishes itself as the companion to 'drive_external_sharing', making its purpose and uniqueness evident.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this when you have a 'doc_id' from a sharing finding to determine ownership and history. It contrasts with 'drive_external_sharing' and explains when not to use it (e.g., for sharing findings that haven't been triaged). It also clarifies that an empty result does not prove the document doesn't exist.

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