drive_search_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions search by name/keyword and extension filter but omits important behavioral details such as case sensitivity, recursion, pagination, or whether metadata is returned. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 sentence that succinctly captures the tool's purpose and key capabilities with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and 4 parameters (1 required), the description covers the essential action but lacks details on search behavior (e.g., recursive, case-sensitive) and return format. It is adequate for a basic search tool but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by clarifying that 'query' is a name/keyword search and 'extension' is a filter. Schema coverage is 75%, so the description compensates for the missing description on 'limit'. However, 'folder_path' default is already in 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches for files by name or keyword with an optional extension filter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_list_files which likely list without search, and drive_get_file_info which targets a specific file.

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 implies usage for searching by name/keyword but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like drive_list_files or drive_get_file_info are not referenced.

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