add_egovframe_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it copies source/mapper/JSP plus DB scripts if database specified, refuses to write on file conflicts, and supports a preview mode. This provides good behavioral context, though it could mention any irreversible actions or prerequisite the project exists (implied by projectDir).

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 highly concise: four sentences covering main action, dependency handling, conflict behavior, and dry run. Each sentence serves a distinct 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?

Given all 5 parameters are described in the schema and no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for the tool's operation (copy behavior, conflict handling, preview). It could mention what happens after success (e.g., no return value) but overall complete for this tool.

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 description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The description redundantly mentions dryRun and database parameters but does not enrich understanding of the component IDs listing or includeDependencies behavior 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: selecting and assembling common components (EgovFrame) into an existing project, copying source files, mappers, JSPs, and optionally DB scripts. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_ai_components by specifying the EgovFrame context.

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 mentions a dry run option ('dryRun=true로 먼저 미리볼 수 있습니다'), offering usage advice but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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