get_source_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('returns status') but does not disclose whether the status is cached, live, or what 'implementation, activation, validation' concretely entail. It is not misleading, but it adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the plain meaning of the tool name.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource and packs the key status dimensions into a compact list. There is no wasted text or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies what is returned and from which sources. It could mention when to use it relative to the legal-research siblings, but the low complexity and existing output schema keep the gap small.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully documents the input surface. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters. The description adds semantic context about what the status represents, which is welcome but not necessary.

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 ('반환한다' / returns) and a clear resource ('공식 출처와 로컬 저장소' / official sources and local repository), with the exact aspects covered ('구현·활성화·검증 상태'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the status-focused purpose is distinct enough from the search/retrieve siblings.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus searching knowledge bases, retrieving legal documents, or verifying citations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool hints. For a zero-parameter status tool this is a moderate gap, but it still leaves the caller to infer the appropriate context.

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