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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success. The description mentions attendees but doesn't explain how they're notified or what permissions are needed to invite them.

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 extremely concise - just one phrase with a parenthetical clarification. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it more under-specified than optimally concise.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what values the tool returns, error handling, or the semantics of critical parameters like start/end formats. The context signals indicate high complexity that the description doesn't adequately address.

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 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description only addresses one parameter (attendees as email list). It doesn't explain the purpose or format of the 3 required parameters (summary, start, end) or the optional ones (description, location). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('새로운 일정 생성' - create new event) and specifies a key parameter (attendees as email list). It distinguishes from siblings like get_event_detail, list_day_events, and update_event by focusing on creation rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings in a comprehensive way.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose create_event over update_event, or any contextual constraints. The sibling tools include retrieval and update functions, but the description offers no comparative usage advice.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a retrieval operation ('조회'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm if it's safe (e.g., no side effects), mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the core action and resource.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '상세 정보' (detailed information) includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error cases. For a retrieval tool with no structured output, more context on return values would be helpful to the agent.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It specifies that 'event_id' is used to retrieve details, which aligns with the schema's single required parameter. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about 'event_id' (e.g., format, examples). The description doesn't compensate by explaining what an event_id is or where to get it, leaving the parameter semantics largely undocumented.

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 '일정 ID로 상세 정보 조회' (Retrieve detailed information by schedule ID) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('조회' - retrieve) and resource ('상세 정보' - detailed information). It distinguishes from siblings like list_day_events or list_month_events by focusing on a single event's details rather than listing multiple events. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_event in terms of read vs. write operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid event_id), when not to use it (e.g., for listing events), or direct alternatives like list_day_events for broader queries. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('조회' means retrieve/look up), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the parameter format without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (listing events for a date), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or pagination, doesn't guide usage relative to siblings, and leaves output format unspecified. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed for effective agent use.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It specifies that the 'date' parameter should be in 'YYYY-MM-DD' format, which is useful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid date range, timezone handling, or other constraints. With only one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides some but incomplete compensation.

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: '지정한 날짜(YYYY-MM-DD)의 모든 일정 목록 조회' translates to 'Retrieve all schedule lists for a specified date (YYYY-MM-DD)'. It specifies the verb (retrieve/list), resource (schedule/events), and scope (all for a specific date). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_month_events', which is similar but for a month instead of a day.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_month_events' or 'get_event_detail'. It states what it does but doesn't help an agent decide between this and other listing or detail-retrieval tools. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('조회') but doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what '모든' (all) entails (e.g., completeness guarantees). More context is needed for safe use.

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, efficient sentence in Korean with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse despite its brevity.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output format, and differentiation from alternatives, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It mentions '지정한 연/월' (specified year/month), hinting at 'year' and 'month' parameters, but provides no semantics on formats, constraints, or interactions. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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 as '조회' (retrieve/query) for '일정 목록' (event list) within a '지정한 연/월' (specified year/month). It uses a specific verb and resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_day_events' beyond the time scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_day_events' or 'get_event_detail'. It mentions the time scope (year/month) but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to siblings.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: '전달된 값만 반영' (only reflects passed values), indicating a partial update rather than full replacement. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens to unchanged fields. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single Korean sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is clear and efficient for its content.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 7 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and partial-update behavior but misses critical context: authentication needs, error cases, response format, and detailed parameter guidance. For an update operation, this leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent use.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage (titles only, no descriptions). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond the general 'only reflects passed values' note. It doesn't explain what each parameter represents (e.g., attendees as an array of strings, start/end as date strings), their formats, or constraints. For a tool with 7 parameters, this is inadequate compensation for the schema gap.

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: '일정 ID로 일정 정보 수정' (update event information by event ID). It specifies the verb (수정/update) and resource (일정 정보/event information), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_event (creation) and get_event_detail (retrieval). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential update operations beyond the ID-based approach.

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 minimal guidance: it implies usage when you need to update an existing event using its ID. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create a new event with create_event), nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or permissions. The context is implied but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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