gam_drive_list_files

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

In the absence of annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and mentions "server-side query," but fails to disclose pagination behavior (though maxResults and a limit of 1000 are in the schema), rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the userEmail parameter, or whether trashed files are included. The description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure that could highlight key aspects (e.g., required parameters, pagination hints). It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but could be more informative without added length.

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 tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (json/csv), pagination behavior, how to use the corpora parameter for shared drives, or that the userEmail is for impersonation. The 60% schema coverage partially compensates but the description itself is too sparse to be fully self-contained.

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 60% (three out of five parameters have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only restates that the tool uses a "server-side query." For the two parameters without schema descriptions (format, maxResults), the description offers no clarification. Overall, it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb "Lists", the resource "Drive file metadata", and the condition "matching a server-side query." This distinguishes the tool from siblings like gam_drive_audit_permissions and gam_gmail_search_messages, which operate on different resources or actions.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a user email for impersonation, or when to prefer this over other list tools. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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