nworks_drive_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. Beyond that, the description discloses a critical prerequisite: 'User OAuth 인증 필요 (file.read scope)'. This adds value by informing the agent about authentication requirements, which is not captured in the annotations.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides usage triggers and auth requirements. No filler, front-loaded purpose, every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only list operation with four optional parameters fully described in the schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage context. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap for a list-fetching tool, and the auth note completes the picture.

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%, with all four parameters (count, cursor, userId, folderId) documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it correctly rests at the baseline of 3.

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 action ('목록을 조회합니다' - retrieves list) and the resource ('NAVER WORKS 드라이브의 파일/폴더'). It provides example user requests that clarify intent. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like nworks_sharedrive_list or nworks_sharedrive_files, though '내 파일 목록' implies the personal drive.

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 gives concrete natural-language triggers ('드라이브 파일 보여줘', '내 파일 목록') that tell an agent when to invoke this tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or mention of alternative sibling tools, but the usage context is clear and direct.

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