list_drive_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the aggregation behavior when account is omitted, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose that this returns metadata (not content), pagination behavior, or that it is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'List'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It is efficient and clear without unnecessary detail.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and filters. It does not describe the return format or pagination, but these are partially covered by schema parameters. The missing account aggregation nuance is a notable plus.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions filter by folder or text query and account omission, but the schema already describes these parameters in detail. No additional parameter meaning is provided.

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 opens with 'List Google Drive files', a specific verb+resource pairing. It adds unique scope by noting account aggregation and optional folder/text filters, which differentiates it from siblings like get_drive_file or search_drive_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 provides clear context for use: listing files, with optional filters for folder or text. It explicitly explains the effect of omitting the account parameter, but it does not mention alternatives such as search_drive_files for broader content search.

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