generate_egovframe_report

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

The description explicitly notes the tool is read-only ('읽기 전용'), which is a key behavioral trait. With no annotations provided, this disclosure helps, but additional details (e.g., no side effects, no network calls) are missing.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main action and purpose, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 simple read-only report generator with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the content and read-only nature. It lacks specification of where the report is saved or returned, but this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (single parameter with description requiring absolute path). The tool description does not add new information beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the tool scans a project and generates a Markdown report containing installed components, reference tables, guide links, and issues. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like diagnose_egovframe_project or add_egovframe_components.

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 mentions suitability for documenting assembly results or attaching to README, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like diagnose_egovframe_project, nor does it list exclusions.

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