sootool.policy_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's '읽기 전용' restates structured data rather than adding to it. The field enumeration (영역, 이름, 연도, 출처, 시행일, 종료일, 상태, sha256) is also largely duplicated by the existing output schema, leaving little genuinely new behavioral context beyond 'no arguments needed'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the sibling hand-off. The middle sentence's field list is somewhat redundant given the output schema and could be trimmed without losing 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 return values, and it still covers the argument-free, read-only nature plus the correct alternative for content. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only the redundancy of the field list keeps it short of a 5.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description reinforces this by stating '인자가 없고', which prevents an agent from hunting for a filter argument that does not exist. No further parameter detail is applicable.

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 and resource ('모든 정책 파일 목록을 반환한다') and additionally scopes it to package and override storage. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (sootool.policy_get) for content retrieval, so an agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Provides a clear use condition ('정책 내용이 필요하면 sootool.policy_get 을 쓴다') that separates listing metadata from fetching content. It does not, however, discuss when to prefer policy_history or policy_diff over a flat listing, so the routing guidance is partial rather than complete.

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