네트워크 진단

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/additive/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond annotations: it discloses what failure classes are reported (DNS/timeout/TLS/proxy-auth/refused), what prescriptions it emits (env vars + shell commands for bash/cmd/PowerShell), and the side-effect-free guarantee ('파일을 쓰지 않으며 프로젝트 디렉터리도 필요 없습니다'). Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or latency expectations tied to timeoutMs.

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?

Front-loads what's probed, then prescriptions, then when-to-use. That ordering is reasonable, but the first sentence is a very long enumeration of hosts and failure modes that duplicates schema data. Trimming the domain list would tighten it without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value descriptions are not needed. The description still covers the critical behavioral facts an agent needs: what is probed, what categories of result appear, that it is side-effect-free, and the triggering condition. Slightly short on how the env-specific prescriptions are selected/ordered, but otherwise complete for a read-only diagnostic.

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 already 100%, and enum values are enumerated in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description lists the same domains the enum encodes, adding marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (send DNS/HEAD requests + report) on a specific resource (external hosts with enumerated domains). Clearly distinguishes from sibling diagnose_egovframe_project (which likely checks project structure). An agent can identify this as a network-connectivity diagnostic 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?

Explicit when-to-use: '프로젝트 생성·컴포넌트 조립이 타임아웃으로 실패할 때 먼저 실행하세요.' Names the triggering failure condition and precedence. No ambiguity about when to pick this over other diagnostics.

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