drive_up

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the dual mode (parent folder vs. escape to main screen), which is useful beyond the schema. It omits what happens at the root level (error? no-op?), whether navigation state or search context is cleared, and any permission/state implications.

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 filler. The parenthetical second mode is slightly compressed and could read ambiguously, but overall it is tight.

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 one-parameter navigation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. Missing edge-case behavior at the root of the hierarchy and the effect on search/section state leaves an agent guessing in exactly the situations this tool is meant for.

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%, and the 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema including the 0 = don't list sentinel. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 navigation action ('Go to the parent folder') plus a second mode ('leave a section/search back to the main screen'), so an agent can tell this is a hierarchical back-navigation tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent siblings like drive_cd or drive_open, leaving that distinction to inference.

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?

Implies when it applies by naming two contexts (inside a folder, inside a section/search screen), which is more than nothing. But it never states when NOT to use it or names drive_cd/drive_menu as the alternative, so routing between the several navigation siblings is left ambiguous.

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