get_drive_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It conveys a read-only operation (via 'Get') and lists sample metadata fields, but does not discuss permission requirements, error behavior, or other behavioral traits. This is adequate for a simple get operation but lacks depth.

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 waste. It immediately states the action and resource, then provides relevant examples of returned data.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear overview of what the tool returns. It does not explicitly list all possible metadata fields, but the examples ('size, parents, export links') are sufficient for typical use cases. Sibling tools add context.

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 provides 100% coverage for the two parameters ('Account id.' and 'Google Drive file ID.'). The description adds context about the output metadata but not about the parameters themselves, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('full metadata for a specific Google Drive file'), and provides specific return elements ('size, parents, export links'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_drive_file_content (content retrieval) and list_drive_files (listing multiple files).

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 the tool is for retrieving metadata of a single, known file, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any exclusions. It relies on sibling names and context to convey appropriate usage.

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