dms_resourceId

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '조회' implies a read, but nothing is said about permission requirements, behavior for a nonexistent/inaccessible resourceId, or what properties are returned. For a metadata tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial 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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification, which is penalized elsewhere rather than here.

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 and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the returned property set and error behavior; it does neither. It is minimally adequate for a one-parameter lookup whose purpose is unambiguous, but an agent still lacks return-shape context.

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% and the single resourceId parameter is already documented in the schema ('조회할 파일/폴더의 ID'). The description adds no format, scope, or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 Korean phrase '개별 파일/폴더 속성 조회' gives a specific verb (retrieve/inspect) and resource (properties of an individual file/folder). It contrasts implicitly with list-style siblings such as dms_list by emphasizing '개별' (individual), but it never names an alternative tool 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?

Usage is only implied: '개별' signals single-item metadata lookup as opposed to listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many siblings (dms_list, search_files_resources, dms_root). The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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