프로젝트 무결성 검증

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds value by naming the two specific integrity checks (manifest file existence and Globals.DbType/DB script consistency), which tells the agent what class of problems it surfaces. It does not, however, describe failure reporting or what a negative result looks like beyond the output schema.

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 that pairs the verb with a colon-delimited list of the two checks. No filler or redundancy, though the embedded enumeration is slightly dense.

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 one well-documented parameter, full annotation coverage, and an output schema that carries return values, the description covers the essentials for calling the tool. Its gap is routing guidance against the crowded set of sibling diagnosis/validation tools, which an agent would still need to resolve.

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% and there is only one required parameter (projectDir) already documented as '검증할 프로젝트 디렉터리'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (무결성을 진단합니다 / validate integrity) and resource (조립된 프로젝트), and enumerates the two concrete checks performed (manifest-based file existence and Globals.DbType vs copied DB scripts). This is clearly more than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like diagnose_egovframe_project or check_egovframe_dependencies, leaving the boundary unclear.

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 what is checked but never says when to run this tool versus diagnose_egovframe_project, check_egovframe_dependencies, or test_egovframe_project, all of which sit in the same validation/diagnosis space. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer usage 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.