nworks_sharedrive_files

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description adds useful behavioral context by naming the OAuth scope requirement and the shared-drive ID prerequisite. There is no contradiction between the description and the read-only annotation.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and then moves to shared-drive ID lookup and auth requirements in a clear order. The sharedriveId sentence partly repeats the schema description, which keeps it from being best-in-class, but there is no filler.

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 simple read-only list tool with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, this description gives enough context for an agent to invoke it: the purpose, the required id source, and the auth scope. It does not explain return formatting or pagination behavior, but such details are essentially covered by schema descriptions and annotations.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description is not required to repeat parameter details. The only parameter-related note, that sharedriveId can be retrieved via nworks_sharedrive_list, duplicates the schema's own text and does not add meaning beyond it.

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 explicitly identifies the action as listing the file/folder list of a shared drive ('공유 드라이브의 파일/폴더 목록을 조회합니다'), which conveys a specific verb and resource. It separates itself from shared-drive listing by prefixing 'files/folders', but it does not explicitly disambiguate from siblings such as nworks_sharedrive_download.

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 valuable prerequisite guidance: sharedriveId can be obtained from nworks_sharedrive_list, and User OAuth with file.read scope is required. However, it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool over alternatives like nworks_sharedrive_download or nworks_sharedrive_list, leaving the choice to inference.

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