컴포넌트 상세

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so '(읽기 전용)' merely restates structured data. The one piece of added value is the claim that everything is returned 'in one call', which tells the agent it need not chain several lookups; no auth, error, or missing-id behavior is disclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the return payload before the parenthetical read-only note. It is dense but every clause earns its place by describing the returned fields; no filler or repetition beyond the annotation restatement.

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 return values and does so thoroughly by enumerating the payload sections. It leaves minor gaps — behavior for an unknown id, and whether dependencies are resolved recursively — but is largely sufficient for a single-parameter read tool.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is documented with an example ('bbs') in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about id format or lookup semantics, so the 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?

Names a specific verb+resource (returns the detail of one common component) and enumerates exactly what that detail contains (description, direct/transitive dependencies, dependents, reference tables, guide links, install command). This distinguishes it in substance from the plural list/search siblings, but it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'one component' framing versus list_egovframe_components and search_egovframe_components. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this tool over those, nor any prerequisite (e.g. must the component already be added to the project?).

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