받은 자료 읽기

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description wisely spends its budget on what annotations cannot say: per-extension behavior (md/txt/csv/json as text, pdf as original attachment, png/jpg as image), how folders behave versus files, the security boundary against links/hidden/out-of-root paths, and a prompt-injection warning that content is LMS data, not instructions.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and root, then compact clauses per file type, then the boundary rule, then the injection caveat — every sentence adds a distinct fact with no restatement of the name or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the entire burden of explaining what comes back, and it does: folder → listing, text → text chunks, pdf → original attachment, images → images. Combined with the stated security boundary, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: that long text is continued via offset (matching the schema's '이전 결과의 안내대로'), and that mode is inferred from whether path is a folder or file. maxChars is left to the schema, which is fine given its inline description.

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 specific verb (읽는다) and resource (받은 강의자료·과제 첨부·녹취·요약) scoped to a named storage root, and explicitly anchors the root to the sibling get_storage_dir. It also enumerates the output shape per file type, so an agent can tell it apart from sync_materials or delete_materials without opening a 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?

Gives a clear usage context ('파일 접근이 없는 클라이언트(Claude Desktop)에서 쓴다') and hard exclusions (저장 위치 밖·링크·숨김 파일은 읽지 않는다), which is more than most. It does not, however, route the agent to a sibling when it wants to modify or remove materials — no 'when not to use this, use X instead' statement.

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