nworks_sharedrive_list

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) and the description does not contradict them — '조회' aligns with read-only semantics. The description adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing the User OAuth requirement and the file.read scope, which an agent must know before invoking.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, trigger examples, and auth requirement. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and there is zero 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 two-parameter paginated list tool, the package is nearly complete: annotations carry the read-only/idempotent profile, the schema documents both params, and the description adds auth context. Minor gap: with no output schema, the result format is unstated, but for a shared-drive listing this is highly inferable and not a practical blocker.

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%: count has min/max/default and cursor is documented as a pagination cursor. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and resource ('공유 드라이브 목록' / shared drive list), and reinforces purpose with concrete example queries. It does not explicitly differentiate from the closely related sibling nworks_drive_list, though the tool name itself carries much of that distinction.

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 explicit trigger conditions with example natural-language requests ('공유 드라이브 뭐 있어?', '팀 공유 드라이브 찾아줘'), which is clear when-to-use context. However, it provides no exclusions or routing to alternatives — it never says when NOT to use this tool or points to nworks_drive_list for personal drives.

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