sootool.skill_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds meaningful behavior: the default section is `all`, and `lang` resolves through request language then the SOOTOOL_LOCALE environment variable before falling back to `ko` — details no annotation conveys.

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?

Four short sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the section enum, then lang resolution, then the call-timing directive last. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. For a two-optional-parameter read-only guide tool, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly, including defaults and locale behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely does: it enumerates the valid `section` values and glosses `triggers` as a call-signal table, and constrains `lang` to ko/en with an explicit default-resolution chain. `examples`, `anti_patterns`, and `playbooks` are named but not characterized, leaving a small gap.

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 ("에이전트용 능동 활용 가이드를 반환한다") and makes clear this is a meta/guidance tool rather than one of the many computation siblings. An agent can immediately tell this is not a calculator but a guide provider.

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?

"세션을 시작할 때 한 번 읽는다" gives an explicit call timing and frequency, which is unusually actionable. It stops short of stating when-not to call (e.g., mid-session section re-reads), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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