drive_read_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real traits: 'download' extracts text on this computer and leaves nothing on the phone, 'viewer' reads only what Drive exposes, and 'auto' falls back download→viewer. It omits permission/auth requirements, failure behavior when no text is extractable, and truncation semantics, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact explanation of the method options. Every sentence earns its place, with only minor redundancy in the parenthetical file-type list.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should also convey what comes back (a text string, truncation via max_chars/max_pages, behavior when text cannot be extracted). It covers method selection well but says nothing about return shape or failure modes, leaving it only adequate for a 7-parameter read tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema for the method enum: the schema only lists 'auto, download or viewer' while the description explains what each does and the fallback order. Other parameters (name, path, index, max_chars, max_pages) rely on their schema text.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (text of a file), and enumerates the file types it handles (PDF pages, document, slides, sheets, plain text). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like drive_download or drive_view, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives explicit guidance for choosing the 'method' value (download vs viewer vs auto), which is useful. However it never says when to call this tool instead of drive_download or drive_view, so tool-level usage is only implied.

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