AI 계층 조립

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: backup creation and restore-on-removal, marker-scoped pom insertion, atomic refusal (nothing written on conflict), and a no-network preview mode. These are consistent with destructiveHint=false / idempotentHint=false rather than contradicting 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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences that lead with the outcome and then the safety mechanics. Every sentence carries information, though the middle clause is packed tightly enough to slow parsing.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers conflict handling, backup/restore, and preview adequately. The main remaining gap is any indication of what the tool reports back on success or rejection, which the absence of an output schema leaves undocumented.

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 ref, stack enum, dryRun, includeUi, includeInfra, includeTests and projectDir are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the dryRun preview and application-ai.yml profile but adds no new per-parameter syntax or constraints, 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+resource: assembling the egovframe-ai-rag RAG chatbot (document upload→embedding→hybrid search→LLM response) into an existing Boot project, plus exactly what artifacts are copied (source/config/UI/infra) and what is inserted (pom deps via markers). This is clearly differentiated from the generic sibling add_egovframe_components.

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 useful operating context — dryRun=true for a preview, and refusal on conflict — but never states when to choose this over add_egovframe_components or what prerequisites the target project must satisfy. Usage is implied rather than routed against alternatives.

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