폐쇄망 오프라인 번들 만들기

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

Beyond the annotations (write, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses sha256 fingerprint verification, that it refuses non-empty directories, the dryRun default, the 30-day snapshot staleness warning, and what is deliberately excluded (Maven jars). This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot derive from annotations alone.

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 and the bundle contents are front-loaded before the downstream/offline behavior, and the exclusion note is a useful trailer. It is dense and long for a single paragraph, but nearly every clause conveys distinct operational information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain returns, and it still covers contents, write restrictions, dryRun semantics, fingerprint verification, and offline consumption. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be 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 the schema already documents all five parameters, and the description adds only marginal detail on dryRun and template selection. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('creates an offline bundle for air-gapped environments, on an internet PC') and enumerates exactly what the bundle contains (OSV dump, pinned component archive, Initializr templates, origin mirror, manifest). No sibling tool performs bundle creation, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

It clearly situates usage ('on an internet PC', target air-gapped PC via EGOVFRAME_OFFLINE_BUNDLE) and states a constraint ('writes only to new or empty directory') and a default ('dryRun shows only the list'). It does not explicitly name conflicting siblings, but the context is unambiguous.

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