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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns signals and principles, without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or destructive potential. The read-only nature is implied by '신호' (signals) but not explicitly confirmed.

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 a single, concise sentence plus an instruction, containing no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and filter capability. The instruction could be considered additional useful context, making it efficient.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description should explain what the returned signals and principles look like. It only vaguely mentions '탐지 신호(라이브 쿼리/grep)' without format or structure details. The tool's role in a pipeline is hinted but not fully fleshed out, leaving an agent needing more context to use it effectively.

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 67%: tag and klass have descriptions, tier only has enum values. The description adds that these are filters ('klass/tier/tag로 필터'), which provides context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the meaning or expected format of the '신호' (signals) output, which is not defined in the schema either.

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 tool returns detection signals and fixing principles for empirical bug classes, with filters by klass/tier/tag. The verb '반환' (returns) and the resource '실증 버그 클래스의 탐지 신호' (empirical bug class detection signals) are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like spider_checklist or spider_plan, which may have overlapping purposes.

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 includes a usage hint '계획 후 이 신호를 그대로 실행해 증거를 수집하라' (after planning, execute these signals to collect evidence), implying it should be used after planning. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings, leaving the selection context vague.

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