get_smell_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'retrieve', but it does not disclose behaviors such as not-found handling, permission requirements, rate limits, or absence of side effects. The 'findings array' note is a small behavioral hint, but it is insufficient for full transparency.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding only the key output detail ('findings 배열 포함'). There is zero redundant wording, and every word earns its place. This is a model of conciseness.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the resource and the key output field, and the schema covers the input. It lacks error-handling context or relationship to sibling tools, but given the simplicity, the essential information for invoking the tool correctly is present.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter jobId with a description ('조회할 smell analysis job ID') and a minimum constraint. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as how to obtain a job ID or any format details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 action ('retrieves' via '조회한다') and the resource ('saved single smell analysis detail'). It also notes the 'findings array' inclusion, which distinguishes it from list-style siblings by emphasizing a single-item lookup. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other sibling get tools like get_code_analysis_results, so it does not fully maximize sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that jobId would come from a list or save operation, nor does it recommend using list_smell_analyses to find job IDs. This leaves the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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