공통컴포넌트 조립

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: dependencies are auto-included, DB DDL/DML scripts are copied only when database is specified, and the write is all-or-nothing — any conflict with existing files aborts the whole operation without writing anything. That atomic-refusal guarantee is the key detail for a non-idempotent write tool and it is stated explicitly.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (what is copied, DB-script condition, conflict policy, preview option), with the core action front-loaded and zero 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 mutating multi-file install tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential risks: conflict handling, dependency expansion, DB-script side effect and a no-network dry run. The only real gap is the explicit prerequisite chain to create_egovframe_project, which is left to the schema.

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 schema already documents dryRun, database, components, projectDir and includeDependencies. The description reinforces the semantics (database → DDL/DML copying, dependencies pulled in) but does not add format, ordering or validation detail beyond what the schema gives, 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 concrete verb+resource (공통컴포넌트를 조립) and immediately bounds the scope: copies dependent components' source, mapper and JSP files into an existing project. That scope distinguishes it from create_egovframe_project (scaffolds new projects), remove_egovframe_components and reassemble_egovframe_components without needing the schema.

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 only usage guidance is the recommendation to preview with dryRun=true first; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this tool over siblings such as reassemble_egovframe_components or apply_egovframe_recipe. The prerequisite (run create_egovframe_project first) lives in the projectDir schema description rather than in the tool description, so the workflow is only implied.

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