레시피 적용

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state and is not repeat-safe. The description adds the sequential multi-phase nature and the dryRun safety valve, but never mentions overwrite behavior for an existing outputDir or what happens on partial failure mid-sequence — important for a non-idempotent, open-world writer.

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 short sentences, with the operation and its phases front-loaded before the dryRun tip. The second sentence largely repeats the dryRun parameter description already in the schema, so one clause is slightly redundant, but nothing is verbose.

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?

This is a multi-phase orchestrator with no output schema, so the description should say what the returned plan/result looks like and how partial failures surface — neither is covered. Combined with the missing overwrite/idempotency context, it is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 every parameter (including recipeId pointing at list_egovframe_recipes and the dryRun flag) is already documented in-schema; the description's recipe/dryRun mentions restate that. Baseline 3 applies — no extra syntax, format, or cross-parameter interaction is added.

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 and resource ('레시피 하나를 골라') and spells out the composite job: project creation followed by common-component assembly, optionally with AI layer. That composite scope implicitly separates it from create_egovframe_project / add_egovframe_components, but those siblings are never named.

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 dryRun sentence implies a preview-then-run workflow, which is useful guidance. However there is no explicit statement of when to pick this composite tool over the granular create_egovframe_project + add_egovframe_components path, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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