AGENTS.md 생성

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: an existing file is refused unless overwrite=true, and dryRun=true returns content without writing. It does not describe the response shape, but for a mutation tool this is solid added context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the enumerated content is a legitimate, information-dense list rather than filler. It is a single long sentence, but every clause carries meaning, so size is justified by the tool's breadth.

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?

For a mutating generator with no output schema, the description covers what is generated, the overwrite guard, the dry-run mode and the language choice. The main omission is any indication of what the returned value contains in dryRun mode, but overall an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 documents projectDir, overwrite, dryRun, fileName and lang. The description adds only marginal meaning (default Korean with English option) and never mentions fileName or projectDir. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (generate) and resource (AGENTS.md) and enumerates the exact content it will produce (build/test commands, RTE version, DbType, package/config dirs, MCP tools). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like generate_egovframe_config or diagnose_egovframe_project without opening any 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?

The description implies the use case ('for AI coding tools such as Claude Code, Copilot, Cursor'), which gives context, but it never states when to choose this over siblings such as diagnose_egovframe_project or generate_egovframe_report, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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