list_egovframe_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the output type (list) but discloses no behavioral traits such as authentication needs, caching behavior, data freshness, response format details, or any side effects. For a read-only listing, basic expectations are not met.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It should at least hint at what each template entry contains (e.g., name, ID) or whether the list is ordered. The agent may need more context to use the output effectively.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). No parameter documentation is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter info but doesn't need to.

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 returns a list of eGovernment standard framework project templates ('사용 가능한...목록을 반환'). The verb 'returns' and resource 'templates' are specific, and it distinguishes from the sibling 'create_egovframe_project' (list vs create).

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 usage: to see available templates before creating a project. While no explicit when-not or alternatives are stated, the purpose naturally indicates when to use (when you need the list) and not use (when creating a project). The single sibling is understood by contrast.

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