stocklens_status

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by revealing that the tool only reads existing call logs and update-check caches, performs no network requests, and is deliberately exempt from the license gate so it works in inactive-license states. This gives the agent important behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 three focused sentences: a front-loaded summary of outputs, a clear usage context, and important behavior/guidance notes. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 status tool, the description fully covers what the tool reports, when to use it, its performance characteristics, its license-gate exception, and how to handle detected problems. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description—correctly—does not attempt to document parameters, and nothing is missing for invocation.

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 opens with a clear noun-phrase summary—'상태요약'—and enumerates exactly what the tool reports: version, license, domestic/US market status, recent successes/failures, and cache write availability. It then states the intended use case, checking for problems during a conversation, which clearly distinguishes it from the many data-retrieval sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: '대화 중 가볍게 확인할 때' (when lightly checking during conversation). It also gives exclusions and alternatives, noting that it makes no new network calls, that unlike other tools it bypasses the license gate, and that users should be directed to LeetKit Manager's [진단] or [지원 문의] rather than terminal commands.

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