Получение сетевого диска

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false contradicts the description's clear statement that the tool returns information (a read operation). This is an annotation contradiction because the description implies read-only behavior while the annotation suggests the opposite, so the description does not add trustworthy behavioral context.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and lists the returned fields. It is concise without being under-specified.

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?

The description provides the what and the returned fields, and the schema covers the input, but the annotation contradiction creates uncertainty about the tool's effects. It does not mention any prerequisites or clarify that it is read-only given the conflicting annotation, so completeness is moderate.

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 input schema already documents the single required parameter network_drive_id with a clear description at 100% coverage. The description mentions 'by its ID' but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns detailed information about a specific network drive by ID, listing the fields returned. This distinguishes it from list_network_drives and other drive operations.

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 implies usage (you need a network drive ID) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like list_network_drives or other network drive operations. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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