컴포넌트 상세

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the trailing '(읽기 전용)' is mildly redundant but not contradictory. The real added value is the enumeration of return contents, which matters because there is no output schema; no auth or rate-limit context is provided, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a parenthetical tag, with every clause listing a concrete return element. The redundant '(읽기 전용)' is the only wasted token, preventing a 5.

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 burden of describing the return value and does so by enumerating its sections. The lone required parameter is fully documented by the schema, and annotations cover safety, so an agent has nearly everything needed.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with an example ('bbs') already in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('반환합니다') and resource ('공통컴포넌트 하나의 상세') and enumerates exactly what the response contains (dependencies, dependents, reference tables, guide links, install command). The word '하나의' (one) implicitly contrasts it with the sibling search_/list_ tools, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 single-component scope implies when to use it versus the list/search siblings, but the description never states the condition ('when you have an id and need full detail') or any exclusions. Usage is left to inference from the name and scope.

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