get_source_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating the categories of information the status report contains (last collection time, stale data, missing items, supported scope), which is meaningful because there is no output schema to describe the return.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the four things checked, with no filler or redundancy. Appropriate size for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the reported fields, so an agent knows what it will get back. It stops short of explaining how to act on 'stale' or 'missing' findings, but the essentials for invoking the tool are 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 names a specific resource (수집/source status) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: last collection time, stale data, missing items, and supported scope. The verb '확인합니다' (check) is a bit generic, and no sibling tool is named for contrast, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can tell this apart from get_material_cache or get_school_connection.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. A capable agent can infer this is a diagnostic/status check, but nothing in the description states when to reach for this tool versus its many siblings.

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