KPN Persona Runtime

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (name, affiliation, expertise, public intention, issuer signature) and explicitly stating no actions are performed, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and contained fields, the second underscores read-only nature. Every sentence is purposeful and information-dense, with no fluff.

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 tool with one parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content and behavioral scope. It is complete given the complexity.

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 the description adds little beyond the schema's 'did' parameter description. The phrase 'DID로' mirrors the schema, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already 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?

The description clearly states the tool queries a persona card by DID and lists its contents (name, affiliation, expertise, public intention, issuer signature). It also clarifies it's read-only. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sync_persona_card' or 'verify_persona_did', though the read-only nature implies 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 explains this tool is for inquiry only and performs no actions, giving context for when to use (read-only lookup). It does not state when not to use or provide explicit alternatives, though sibling names are available.

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?

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it never performs actions (executed:false), and sensitive questions are held. This complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses efficient language with no redundant information.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description explains the nature of the response (recommendation) and handles edge cases (sensitive questions). It is fairly complete but could elaborate on the output format.

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 descriptions for both parameters are clear and cover 100% of parameters. The description adds context about the type of question, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: consulting a persona for judgment advice. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing what it does not do (no real actions) and mentioning that sensitive questions are held.

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 provides clear guidance for when to use the tool (to get persona advice) and when not (private/sensitive questions result in 'hold'). It explains that the tool does not perform actions, but does not name alternative tools for actions.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the tool only updates persona data and performs no external actions, providing reassurance about its safety scope. No contradictions with annotations.

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 in Korean are concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the core action, second adds the benefit, third states limitations. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, why it is used, and what it does not do. No gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 already describes the single parameter 'did' with 100% coverage. Description only references '해당 DID' without adding new parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since no additional value is provided.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'synchronize' and specific resource 'runtime of given DID.' It distinguishes from siblings (get, query, verify) by explaining it updates persona data rather than reading or verifying. The explicit limitation 'does not perform any external actions' further differentiates 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?

Description explains the context: ensuring the card receiver gets the current persona. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or alternatives. The benefit is clear, but no exclusion criteria are given.

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=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it returns SIGNATURE_MISMATCH if the card is tampered, and it is verification-only. It does not contradict annotations. The description could be enhanced by noting any prerequisites (e.g., registry access) but is sufficient given the read-only nature.

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 three sentences with no unnecessary words. Key information is front-loaded: purpose, error condition, and use case. Every sentence adds value.

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 verification tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, behavior, parameter semantics (including optional fallback), and use case. It does not explicitly state the success return value, but the error case (SIGNATURE_MISMATCH) is described, which is sufficient for understanding.

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?

Both parameters (did, cardPayload) have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema: it explains that if cardPayload is omitted, the tool uses the registry-stored version for self-verification. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 (판정합니다 - determines), the resource (페르소나 명함 - persona card), and the specific purpose (validating signature to detect tampering). It differentiates from sibling tools: get_persona_card retrieves cards, query_persona_decision queries decisions, sync_persona_card syncs cards, while this tool is exclusively for verification.

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 says when to use the tool: '에이전트 사칭 여부를 확인할 때 사용하세요' (use when checking for agent impersonation). It also notes it is verification-only and performs no actions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, though the sibling context provides implicit differentiation.

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