codeitso (코드잇소)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail — that counts accompany categories, that items are ordered by popularity by default, and that sort can be name or recent — but says nothing about pagination behavior or what happens when both category and subcategory are supplied.

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 whole definition is a single dense sentence with semicolon-separated clauses, front-loaded on the no-argument case and progressing down the tree. Nothing is redundant, though the compressed wording takes a second read to parse the three modes.

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?

Six optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description explains what each mode returns (categories with counts, subcategories, materials ordered by sort), which compensates for the absent output schema. Pagination and response_format details live in the schema, so the remaining gaps are minor for a read-only browse tool.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns a step above it by tying parameters to output shape: category meaningfully returns subcategories, subcategory returns materials, and sort's three values are explained in words rather than left as bare enum names. limit, offset and response_format carry no extra narrative, but the schema already documents them fully.

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 names a specific verb (browse) and resource (catalog tree), then enumerates the three operating modes: bare call lists categories with counts, category lists subcategories, subcategory lists materials. An agent can tell this is hierarchical navigation rather than the search/get_materials siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is conveyed through mode routing: the no-argument case, the category case, and the subcategory case each get an explicit condition. What is missing is an explicit exclusion or contrast with codeitso_search / codeitso_get_materials, so the agent must infer which tool to pick when it already knows a material name.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the data provenance (models.dev, refreshed daily) and an explicit inventory of what is returned (ids, prices, context, release date, material id, comparison link). It does not discuss pagination limits or result caps, which is a minor remaining gap.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded, followed by the scoping semantics and the return payload. For a 16-parameter tool this is compact with 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned fields and the comparison link. For a 16-param read tool with full schema coverage, the definition is nearly complete, though it could note result pagination behavior across offset/limit.

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 the baseline would be 3; the description earns above that by clarifying that provider accepts hosts and routers such as openrouter and that default scope excludes non-major makers, distinctions the schema alone does not make. Other parameters (sort, min_context, price caps) are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Find and compare AI models (LLMs)") and enumerates the comparable facets (price per 1M tokens, context window, input/output types, features). The domain is unmistakable and clearly distinct from the sibling browsing, search, kit, and cart tools.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance for the scope parameter: default major makers, scope=direct for every model maker, and provider to narrow to one provider including hosts/routers like openrouter. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over codeitso_search or codeitso_browse, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what each mode returns (a kit list vs. one kit's materials and a suggested build outline), which is important since no output schema exists.

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?

A single well-structured sentence front-loads the primary list behavior and appends the kit_id variant without wasted words. Its density is appropriate, though the parenthetical definition slightly interrupts the reading flow.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the missing piece: what each call mode returns. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent, though naming the sibling that lists available kit ids would close the loop.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema, including that kit_id comes from the kit list and that response_format toggles json versus markdown. The description does not elaborate on either parameter beyond what the schema states, 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List codeitso starter kits') and clarifies what a kit is with concrete examples (school info apps, games, office tools). It also distinguishes the two modes of operation by noting the kit_id variant returns one kit's materials and build outline, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like codeitso_get_materials that could be confused with it.

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?

It clearly establishes the branch condition: call without kit_id to enumerate kits, call with kit_id to get one kit's detail. That is actionable context for choosing between the two shapes of this tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer a sibling such as codeitso_get_materials or codeitso_search instead.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral content by disclosing that returned records carry 'required auth' and MCP connection instructions, but says nothing about cost, truncation, or error behavior for invalid ids.

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 lead clause is well front-loaded, but the rest is one long run-on sentence stringing together roughly twenty return fields with commas, making it hard to scan. Nothing is truly wasted, but the absence of sentence breaks or grouping hurts readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly across materials, MCP servers, API providers and fonts. What is missing is routing context relative to the five sibling tools, but for a detail endpoint the coverage is close to sufficient.

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% and already documents the id pattern, the 1-5 bounds, and the markdown/json response_format default. The description only restates the 1-5 id limit, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Full details for 1-5 materials by id') and then enumerates the exact payload categories (license, install command, auth, prices). An agent can immediately tell this is the detail-fetch counterpart to codeitso_search and codeitso_browse, which return thinner results.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'by id' phrasing signals it must be preceded by a lookup, and the 1-5 cap hints at batch hydration. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over codeitso_browse, codeitso_get_kits, or codeitso_find_models, and no guidance on what to do with an unknown id.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to argue safety. It does add genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the link embeds state in a URL fragment, ids are never validated or looked up, unknown ids surface as missing on the site, and opening reveals previews, licenses, install commands and a prompt builder.

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, each carrying distinct information: output artifact, downstream effect of opening, and the non-validation caveat. The inline URL example is slightly bulky but earns its place by showing the format.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive link builder with no output schema, it covers what is produced, what happens when the link is opened, and the significant caveat about unresolvable ids. Only minor gaps remain, such as the item-count limit and whether the link expires.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description still adds meaning: 'model' is scoped per AI API provider item rather than globally, and ids are explicitly not resolved server-side, which tells the caller there is no error on bad input. It does not mention the 30-item cap, which stays in the schema only.

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 and resource ('Make a codeitso cart link') and even shows the resulting URL shape, so the output form is unambiguous. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling codeitso_open_cart by explaining that opening the generated link is what loads the cart, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

It says the link is built 'from chosen material ids' and the schema notes ids come from other codeitso tools, which shapes when to reach for it. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus codeitso_open_cart or codeitso_get_materials, and no stated prerequisites, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: that only the fragment after '#' is consumed, and it enumerates what is returned (materials with chosen AI model, official URL, install command, MCP remote URL, required auth), which is important since there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning pagination behavior or what happens with an invalid/expired share string.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb first, then resource, then the accepted URL form, then the payload it returns. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the parenthetical URL template is compact and useful.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing the returned fields explicitly. It is nearly complete for a read-only, 4-parameter tool, with only paging/limit behavior and failure modes left unaddressed.

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%, so limit, offset, share and response_format are already documented by the schema. The description only adds the nuance that the fragment portion is what is actually read, which is a small but real clarification beyond the schema's 'share link, or its fragment' wording. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('codeitso cart share link a person made on the website'), and even names the URL shape it accepts. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling codeitso_make_cart_link (read vs. create), but never mentions codeitso_get_materials or codeitso_find_models, which could plausibly return overlapping data.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrasing 'share link a person made' — an agent can infer this is the tool to use when handed such a link. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not to use it, and no pointer to make_cart_link for producing a link or to get_materials for other material access paths.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return payload (id, one-line summary, license, popularity, key facts) and that subcategories are also returned, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return contract and the hand-off to codeitso_get_materials. The long parenthetical material list is dense but informative; no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by specifying the shape of the results and the accompanying subcategory matches. Pagination is handled by limit/offset in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and every parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the Korean/English keyword behavior already in the query field and adds no new detail on category, subcategory, or response_format semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search codeitso's catalog of public app-building materials") and enumerates the material types covered, plus bilingual query support and concrete query examples. An agent can immediately tell this is keyword retrieval over the catalog, distinct from browsing or fetching material detail.

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 routes to siblings partially: it points at codeitso_get_materials for install commands and full details, and references codeitso_browse as the source of subcategory ids. However, it never states the selection rule between search and browse (e.g. use browse when you have no keywords), so the agent must infer the split from the parameter semantics.

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