dms_storage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 조회 implies a read-only lookup, but nothing states permission requirements, whether the result is cached, or what scope of files is returned. With 0 parameters the risk profile is low, but the disclosure is still largely absent.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no padding and the purpose is front-loaded. But it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity comes at the cost of any operational detail.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of context, and it does not explain which file's properties are returned, how the target file is determined with zero parameters, or how the result relates to sibling listing tools. Inadequate for the surrounding toolset.

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 the schema baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what an empty parameter object already communicates.

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 phrase '내 파일 속성 조회' states a verb (조회/view) and resource (파일 속성/file properties), which is more than a tautology. However, it is ambiguous about scope — which file, whose files, and what 'properties' means — and it does nothing to separate this tool from siblings like dms_root, dms_list, or dms_resourceId.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than dms_root, dms_list, or dms_resourceId, all of which plausibly relate to file structure. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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