템플릿 카탈로그 upstream 대조

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and '파일은 고치지 않습니다' echoes that but the description goes further by enumerating the report categories — added/deleted/changed entries, MCP coverage gaps, new eGovFrame runtime/공통컴포넌트 tags, new parent versions, pom sha256 changes. That tells the agent exactly what evidence the report carries, which annotations alone would not. It does not say whether a network fetch is required, though openWorldHint implies it.

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 very long sentence packing two comparisons and three parenthetical drift categories. The core action is front-loaded, but the density of parenthetical lists makes it harder to scan than two or three shorter sentences would be.

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 no output schema, the description does a fair job naming what the report contains, but it omits the two things an agent most needs: how this differs from sync_egovframe_catalog, and the shape/section layout of the report (or whether it is textual vs structured).

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?

Only one optional parameter (ref) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that an unspecified ref falls back to the pinned catalog branch. The description adds no additional semantics about ref, 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 concrete verb and resource: reconcile the official template catalog (Initializr/MCP/Development) against upstream and report adds/removals/changes plus MCP coverage gaps and drift in the 5.x rule/dependency catalog. Very specific about what is compared and what is reported, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'sync_egovframe_catalog', whose name and purpose read almost identically.

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?

Usage is implied (use when you want to know whether the pinned catalog has drifted from upstream) but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and critically no routing guidance versus sync_egovframe_catalog or list_egovframe_templates. The agent is left to infer which sync tool to pick.

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