nworks_sharedrive_download

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behavior: authentication requirement with file.read scope, conditional return format (text vs base64), and the 5MB outputDir restriction. No annotation contradicts these, so the description adds significant 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?

Four sentences, densely packed with essential operational details. No redundancy or filler. The most important scoping and size constraints are clearly surfaced early.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description explains return value formats, file-saving behavior, and a critical size limit. With full schema documentation for all parameters, an agent has the necessary information to make a correct call.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for outputDir by explaining the save-vs-return decision and the 5MB constraint, which goes beyond the schema's simple property description. It slightly enhances parameter understanding.

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 verb (download), resource (shared drive file), and the scope (shared drive, not general drive). The mention of '공유 드라이브' distinguishes it from sibling tools like nworks_drive_download and nworks_sharedrive_files.

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 explicitly explains the two usage modes: with or without outputDir, and places the 5MB constraint on that decision. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives for this behavior, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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