오늘냥이 (Oneul Nyangi)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly restricting output to public profile information and excluding private statistics and owner personal data. It does not describe return fields or pagination, but the added privacy constraint is substantive.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's action and followed by a precise exclusion. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description gives adequate purpose and privacy scope. It does not explain what fields the public profile contains, and there is no output schema to compensate, but the annotations already carry the safety semantics. The definition is mostly complete.

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?

There is one parameter, catId, with 100% schema coverage including a UUID pattern and description. The description mentions using a cat UUID, which aligns with the schema but adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline for fully covered parameters is 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 states a specific action and resource: retrieves public profile information using a cat UUID. It clearly excludes private statistics and owner personal data, which sharpens the resource boundary. However, it does not name or directly contrast with sibling tools like get_public_post or search_public_content, so the sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 defines a clear negative scope: it does not provide private record statistics or owner personal information. This tells the agent when not to use the tool for private data, which is useful context. It stops short of naming alternative tools or giving positive when-to-use cues, so it is short of the top mark.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing the return payload (cat info, stable image URL) and the exclusion of private records and comments, which is behavioral context 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?

Two tight sentences: the lookup action and its payload lead, and the scope limitation follows. No filler; every clause carries meaning.

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, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (post, cat info, stable image URL). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, missing only guidance on discovering the UUID.

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 a single required postId documented as 게시물 UUID with a UUID pattern. The description echoes this ("게시물 UUID로") but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so 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 (조회) and resource (공개 기록) and even enumerates what is returned (고양이 정보, 안정적인 이미지 URL). This clearly distinguishes it from get_cat_profile and show_cat_photos, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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?

Implies usage by post UUID lookup and draws a boundary by stating private posts and comments are excluded. However, it never names the alternative (e.g., search_public_content) or explains when to prefer it, so an agent must infer the workflow.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that result text and introductions are user-generated content, but it does not cover authentication, rate limits, pagination, or result structure.

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-loads the search purpose, and uses the second sentence for a relevant UGC caveat. There is no redundant or wasted wording.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich safety annotations, so little description is required. The description states scope and content nature, though it does not describe result format or pagination, which is a minor gap since no output schema exists.

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 both parameters are already documented: query accepts cat name, breed, record content, or tag, and limit controls maximum results. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (검색합니다) and resources (공개 고양이 프로필과 공개 게시물), making the tool's scope clear. It implicitly distinguishes search from the sibling get/show tools, but it does not explicitly name any alternative for direct retrieval.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling tools get_cat_profile, get_public_post, and show_cat_photos are not mentioned as alternatives. Usage is only implied by the search verb and scope.

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail: no query returns popular photos, a query narrows by breed, cat name, or tag. It omits result shape and pagination, but for a read-only browse tool this is solid added context.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns and the invocation triggers before covering parameter behavior. It is somewhat long and duplicates itself by restating the Korean explanation in English, but no sentence is wasted on 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, yet the description makes clear these are real user-submitted cat photos from a specific Korean site, which is enough to set expectations. Between the description and the rich annotations, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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 the enum values, limit bounds, and query semantics are already documented in the schema. The description's query examples (코리안 숏헤어, 러시안 블루, 치즈냥이) largely restate the schema's own examples, adding little 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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('show real cat photos shared on 오늘냥이') and identifies the source site and content type, which separates it from get_cat_profile and search_public_content. An agent can tell it is a curated photo-browsing tool rather than a search or profile lookup.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('고양이 사진 보고 싶어', 'show me cat photos') and instructs the agent not to ask which site, which is unusually actionable routing guidance. It also explains the no-query vs query behavior. It does not name when to prefer a sibling tool instead, so it stops short of a full 5.

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