drive_sharing

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose read-only semantics ('changes nothing') and the returned data shape, which is real value. It omits that the copy_link parameter (default true) has a side effect on the device clipboard, and says nothing about what permissions are needed to read sharing settings or what happens when the item is not shared.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the action and the read-only guarantee before listing return contents. No filler; only minor awkwardness in the parenthetical punctuation and the trailing 'file id' enumeration.

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?

Because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully spells out the returned fields, which is the main gap it needed to close for a 5-parameter tool. What remains missing is item-identification behavior and the clipboard side effect of the default copy_link, so it falls just short of fully self-sufficient.

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, copy_link, occurrence) are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about how an item is located — the name/path/index/occurrence resolution strategy is left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ('Read an item's sharing') and enumerates exactly what is returned: people with access (name, email, role), general access, link, and file id. The parenthetical '(changes nothing)' implicitly separates it from the writable siblings drive_share / drive_set_role / drive_unshare, but those siblings are never named.

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 read-only framing ('changes nothing') implies this is the inspection tool rather than the grant/revoke tools, which is useful. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus drive_share, drive_set_role, drive_share_link, or drive_info, so the agent must infer the routing from sibling names.

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