활성 규칙팩 정보 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: the result is not official/legal judgment, and without provenance the observation details cannot be confirmed. This informs the agent about limitations beyond what an output schema would show. Slightly deducting for not explicitly stating the return format, though the output schema is said to exist.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the call trigger and followed by important caveats. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 zero-parameter info tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, when to call, and key limitations. The caveats about official status and provenance add necessary context for the agent's decision-making.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 retrieves the currently active school level, school year, source, and data hash. The verb '확인' (check) plus the specific resource makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on validation, search, or explanation.

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 call it ('when checking...') and adds contextual caveats about the result not being official approval and the provenance limitation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling tool names imply different use cases, so context is clear.

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