Check Drive File Public Access

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that it searches by name and checks public access, but does not clarify edge cases (e.g., multiple matches, file not found). It provides some behavioral context beyond annotations, but not comprehensively.

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 sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. Every part is informative.

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?

Complexity is low with 3 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the essential purpose and relies on the schema for parameter details. It could mention search behavior (e.g., exact match, scope) but for a simple check tool, it is nearly complete given the annotations and schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter adequately described (user_google_email as required, file_name as the name, drive_id with a detailed explanation). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's action: 'Searches for a file by name and checks if it has public link sharing enabled.' It identifies the specific verb (searches, checks), resource (drive file), and outcome (public access status). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_drive_file_permissions or get_drive_shareable_link.

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 does not provide when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives. It does not mention when to use this tool over get_drive_file_permissions or other sibling tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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