의존성 점검

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: it guarantees '디스크를 변경하지 않습니다', explains the default offline catalog path versus OSV network access only when offline=false, and flags that resolve=true needs build-tool/repo access and takes tens of seconds. This is meaningful operational context, though it could note permissions or rate behavior more 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?

The tool's purpose is front-loaded, but the core content is a single very dense multi-clause Korean sentence enumerating eight classification buckets and four baseline sources, which is hard to parse and could be structured as a list. It earns its length informationally but is not concise in form.

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 an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is unusually complete: it enumerates the classification outcomes, the baseline provenance it will cite, the security-config checks, and the offline/online toggle. An agent has everything needed to decide and to interpret results.

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 defines every parameter including defaults and enums. The description only restates resolve/offline semantics with slightly more detail (전이 의존성, 트리 경로, 선언·해석 버전 차이) and adds no syntax or format nuance the schema lacks.

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 precise verb ('점검') and a tightly bounded resource (Maven/Gradle 의존성) along with the exact classification taxonomy and baseline sources it compares against. The scope is narrow enough that an agent can separate it from broader siblings like diagnose_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?

It implies usage ('프로젝트의 의존성' 점검) and explains the cost/behavior toggles (resolve, offline), but never states when to prefer this over diagnose_egovframe_project, validate_egovframe_project, or generate_egovframe_sbom, nor any when-not condition.

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