diagnose_egovframe_project

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

The description explicitly states '디스크를 변경하지 않는 읽기 전용입니다' (read-only, does not change disk), providing clear behavioral transparency. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; the read-only nature is well communicated, though no other behavioral traits (e.g., permissions) are mentioned.

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 description is a single Korean sentence that concisely covers the tool's purpose and key aspects. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slightly longer due to listing diagnostic items, but remains efficient.

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?

The description provides a good overview of what the tool checks (build system, version, DB type, common components, configuration issues) and its read-only nature. However, it does not describe the output format or return values, which would be helpful given no output 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% (only one parameter), and the schema already describes 'projectDir' as the directory to diagnose (recommended absolute path). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

Descriptiom clearly states the tool scans existing eGovFrame projects to diagnose build system, RTE version, DbType, common components, and configuration issues. It uses a specific verb ('diagnose') and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like validate_egovframe_project.

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 description implies usage for diagnosing existing projects (including non-scaffolding) and notes it is read-only, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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