공통컴포넌트 목록

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds provenance context (auto-generated from a repo scan via scripts/generate-catalog.mjs), which hints the data is derived rather than authored, but says nothing about return shape, freshness guarantees, or catalog size.

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 stating the resource first, with the implementation note parenthetical trailing. Efficient, though the internal script path is of marginal value to an agent selecting the tool.

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 zero-param list tool with no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what a catalog entry contains (component identifiers, installable flags), since the agent must act on the result. It leaves that entirely unspecified, so it is adequate but with a clear 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 (반환합니다) and resource (공통컴포넌트 카탈로그), with the qualifier '선택 설치를 지원하는' scoping it to installable components. This loosely differentiates it from siblings like search_egovframe_components or list_egovframe_templates, though 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and no comparison against alternatives such as search_egovframe_components or list_egovframe_templates. A listing tool's usage is somewhat implied, but nothing is stated about when this catalog is the right call.

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