drive_export_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds impressively. It discloses read-only semantics ('Read-only'), failure modes ('refused'), a hard limit (200 KB cap), a precise truncation policy (line boundary), an unexpected side effect (full text written into the download directory), and the return shape ('savedTo'). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines core functionality, the second clarifies exclusions, and the third covers limits, side effects, and return behavior. It's dense yet readable, front-loads the primary action, and contains no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs, supported vs. refused content, size limits, truncation behavior, side effects, and the return path. For a tool with only three parameters and a straightforward output, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates what the schema already says: 'sheet' selects a tab by title, fileId must be a Google Sheet or Doc, and account is an alias. It adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score stands.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the content of a Google-native document on Drive' and then expands on the two supported forms (Sheet → CSV, Doc → plain text). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many drive siblings by announcing what it will refuse (PDF, image, uploaded .xlsx). An agent can determine exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives implicit selection guidance: use it for Google-native documents, and avoid it for binary/file uploads. It explicitly states the supported file types and the refusal behavior, which tells an agent when not to call it. However, it never names alternatives (e.g., drive_get_attachment or drive_list_files), so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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