Google Drive 연동

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

Annotations already mark this as a safe read-only, closed-world probe; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the shared-drive exclusion and that the output can be a user-run mount command rather than a path. It stops short of describing what happens when no Drive install is found at all, leaving a small gap.

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, front-loaded with the core action and platform scope, then the follow-up step and the WSL fallback. The parenthetical platform/shared-drive clause is dense but earns its place; nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still names the key fields (`suggested`, mount command) an agent must act on. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only the not-found/error path left implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The description correctly communicates that the call needs no input and behaves differently based on the detected environment.

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 concrete verb and resource: locate the Google Drive desktop app's "My Drive" folder and return candidate storage locations. It also scopes the platforms (Windows/macOS/WSL) and excludes shared drives, so an agent can tell it apart from get_storage_dir and the other storage siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit next step: pass the returned `suggested` value to set_storage_dir's `path` with user approval, which names the alternative tool and the condition for using it. It also covers the WSL fallback case where no Drive is mounted and a mount command must be surfaced to the user.

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