Get Drive File Permissions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, providing strong behavioral signals. The description adds valuable context about the specific metadata returned (permissions, parent IDs, ownership, timestamps), which is consistent with annotations. No contradictions and no missing disclosures beyond what annotations provide.

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 of 18 words, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No redundant or extraneous information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core functionality, and the annotations fully cover behavioral traits. With 2 well-documented parameters, complete annotations, and output schema present, there are no gaps in information needed for the agent to understand the tool's use.

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%: both parameters (user_google_email, file_id) have clear descriptions in the schema. The description does not add extra information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 'Gets detailed metadata about a Google Drive file including sharing permissions, parent folder IDs, ownership, and lifecycle timestamps.' The verb 'Gets' and resource 'detailed metadata' are specific, and the listed contents distinguish it from sibling tools like 'check_drive_file_public_access' (more narrow) and 'manage_drive_access' (write operation).

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. Given siblings like 'check_drive_file_public_access' for a specific check and 'manage_drive_access' for modifications, explicit usage context would help the agent select correctly. No when/when-not/exclusions mentioned.

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