list_supported_checks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like response format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate for conveying the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on output format or behavioral traits, which could be helpful for an agent to understand what to expect from the response. It meets the minimum viable level but doesn't provide comprehensive context.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for this scenario. No additional value is required or provided, which is appropriate given the lack of parameters.

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 tool's purpose: '현재 지원 예정인 점검 항목 목록을 반환한다' translates to 'Returns a list of inspection items currently scheduled for support.' This specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('list of inspection items scheduled for support'), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'ping', which likely serves a different function (e.g., connectivity testing), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling tool 'ping' or any other context for usage, such as prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Without such information, the agent lacks explicit direction on tool selection.

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