gam_drive_audit_permissions

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It mentions 'memory-safe' and 'streams' implying non-destructive read operation, and output path behavior. However, lacks explicit statement on whether it modifies data, and does not disclose required permissions or side effects. Behavior of filterOwner default is unclear.

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, no fluff. Could be more structured but efficient. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It explains output destination but not output format details, nor behavior of key parameters. Fails to provide complete understanding of tool's functionality.

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 57%, so description should provide additional parameter context. It does not discuss any parameters. The description adds no value beyond schema for parameters like query, format, corpora. Users need to rely on schema descriptions alone.

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?

Description clearly states it's a Drive permissions audit that streams results to a file. The verb 'audit' is specific, and resource 'Drive permissions' is clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gam_drive_list_files which lists files, not permissions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like gam_export_audit_to_sheets. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. Agent must infer usage from context.

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