drive_storage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not state whether shared drives or trash are included, what permissions are required, or what the return format contains.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose and optional behavior are stated immediately.

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 simple read-only tool with no required parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema it does not explain return values such as whether storage is broken down by file type, what units are used, or whether shared/trashed content is included.

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 the limit parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description echoes the optional largest-files behavior but adds no additional syntax, defaults, or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific resource and operation: retrieving drive storage usage and optionally listing the largest files. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar drive tools such as drive_info or drive_list, which keeps it from 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?

It mentions the optional largest-files listing, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of drive_info, drive_list, or other drive inspection tools. Usage is implied but not explained.

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