nworks_drive_list

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds critical auth context (User OAuth required, file.read scope) which implies read-only safety, but lacks other behavioral details like pagination behavior, return value structure, or error conditions given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: (1) core function definition, (2) usage examples, (3) authentication requirements. Information is front-loaded with the action verb and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Covers essential invocation requirements (auth, purpose) but leaves gaps regarding output format since no output schema exists. For a pagination-enabled list operation, the description should ideally characterize what data is returned (file metadata, IDs, types) to compensate for the missing output specification.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all four parameters (userId, folderId, count, cursor) are already well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, which warrants the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific action (조회/retrieve) and resource (NAVER WORKS drive file/folder list). It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like nworks_drive_download and nworks_drive_upload by specifying 목록 조회 (list retrieval) rather than transfer 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?

Provides concrete example utterances ('드라이브 파일 보여줘', '내 파일 목록') indicating when to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., 'use drive_download to get file content instead') or how it relates to specific folder navigation workflows.

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