Get Drive File Permissions

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying exactly what metadata categories are returned (permissions, parent folder IDs, ownership, lifecycle timestamps), which goes beyond the annotation flags.

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, information-dense sentence that lists the key metadata categories without any filler. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 read-only metadata lookup with a rich output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently communicates the tool's purpose and return scope. It could mention error conditions or permission requirements, but these are not critical given the output schema and safety annotations.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema with clear purposes (file_id and user_google_email). The description itself does not add any parameter-specific details, so it relies on the schema's complete coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('Google Drive file'), and enumerates concrete metadata categories: sharing permissions, parent folder IDs, ownership, and lifecycle timestamps. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_drive_file_content or get_drive_file_download_url.

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 implies usage when a caller needs comprehensive file metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as check_drive_file_public_access or get_drive_shareable_link. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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