drive_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload (including who modified the item and a recent-activity list), which is real value given there is no output schema. However, it never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, whether it requires permissions, or how activity entries are bounded.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The quoted UI label ('View information') is a marginally useful anchor for agents driving a UI, but the rest is pure substance.

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 read-only inspection tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the enumerated return fields make it complete enough to call correctly and to know what comes back. The missing piece is any note on the absence of side effects and how the item is resolved when all identification parameters are omitted.

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%, so all five parameters (name, path, index, occurrence, max_activity) are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only an implicit link between 'recent activity' and max_activity and does not explain how the identification parameters interact.

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 names a specific resource and verb: retrieve details and activity for a single item, enumerating what is returned (type, size, location, created, modified by whom, sharing summary, activity). That clearly separates it from list-oriented siblings like drive_list and drive_search, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the tool for inspecting one item. There is no statement about when to prefer it over drive_sharing, drive_view, drive_read_text, or drive_storage, nor any prerequisite about needing a prior listing to resolve the item.

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