프로젝트 빌드

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds real behavioral detail: build tool/wrapper auto-detection, file·line error parsing, and dry-run command preview. It stops short of describing side effects such as where artifacts/target directories are written.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then capabilities, then the dryRun escape hatch. Each sentence earns its place; only the parenthetical workflow tag is arguably 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably ('결과를 구조화해 반환', file/line error parsing). Given the mutation side effects (artifacts, target dirs) are unmentioned, it is good but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the goal options and the dryRun semantics already documented in the schema, but adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (build/compile/test/package an eGovFrame project) and clarifies scope, including auto-detection of build tool/wrapper and file/line error parsing. An agent can separate this from validate_egovframe_project or test_egovframe_project without opening 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 dryRun preview option and the '(생성→검증 루프 완성)' note place the tool in the generate→verify workflow, giving clear context. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., test_egovframe_project or validate_egovframe_project) as the tool to use instead in other cases.

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