works_files_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and scope condition, but omits any details about permissions, side effects, response format, pagination, or error handling. It doesn't even explicitly state that the operation is read-only, leaving the agent to infer it from 'List'.

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 description is extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the action and the key conditional. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 the tool has 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite sparse. It explains only the sharedrive_id behavior and leaves the user and folder_id semantics unclear. The description also fails to mention what data is returned (metadata, contents, recursive listing) or any constraints, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only explains sharedrive_id ('that shared drive' vs 'My Drive'). It does not clarify the meaning or usage of user or folder_id, which remain ambiguous despite having titles. Since the schema provides no descriptions, the description should compensate but only partially does.

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 states 'List files/folders', providing a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes between shared drives and My Drive based on the sharedrive_id parameter, which gives specific scope. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools like works_drives_list or works_sharedfolders_list, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 offers a conditional usage rule for sharedrive_id ('With sharedrive_id: that shared drive; else the delegated user's My Drive'), which clarifies when to use that parameter. But it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like works_search or works_drives_list, and it does not explain the role of user or folder_id parameters.

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