drive_list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it clearly discloses that the tool is read-only and returns only metadata ('name, type, size, modified time, parent folders, link, checksum'), explicitly ruling out content access. It could add more operational detail such as pagination or rate-limit behavior, but the safety profile and metadata scope are well covered.

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 three sentences are dense but purposeful: purpose first, then behavior and metadata scope, then the invocation constraint. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the modes, metadata scope, and the key constraint. It omits explicit return shape and pagination details, but the schema's pageToken and nextPageToken references mitigate that gap reasonably well.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds the crucial mutual-exclusion rule 'Pass folderId or nameContains, not both,' which is absent from the schema and resolves ambiguity about how to choose between folder listing and Drive-wide search.

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: 'List files and folders in a Google Drive folder, or search all of Drive by a name fragment.' It clearly covers both modes of operation and the read-only scope, which distinguishes it from sibling mutating Drive tools like create, move, trash, and export even without naming them explicitly.

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 states when to use the tool: to list a folder's children or search Drive by name fragment. It also clarifies when not to use it if file content is needed ('never opens, downloads, or reveals file content') and gives the explicit instruction 'Pass folderId or nameContains, not both.' It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the read-only constraint effectively routes content-needing calls elsewhere.

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