공식 가이드 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the tool may return multiple documents as a list and docIndex selects among them, which tells the agent to expect a variadic return rather than a single doc.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the secondary multi-document behavior trailing. No filler, though it is slightly short on the routing/usage information an agent would want.

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 idempotent read tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and the multi-document return behavior. With no output schema, it could say more about the returned document shape, but nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the docIndex semantics and the 'bbs, login, cop.cmy' examples. The description restates the multi-document/docIndex behavior without adding syntax or constraints 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?

States a specific verb ('가져옵니다' / fetches) and resource ('컴포넌트의 공식 가이드 문서'), and names the source (egovframe-docs portal). It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like generate_egovframe_config, but it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling search_egovframe_docs or explain_egovframe_component.

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 explains internal mechanics (multi-doc list + docIndex) but never says when to reach for this tool versus search_egovframe_docs or explain_egovframe_component. No prerequisites or exclusions are given; the agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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