get_hunkuk_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '조회합니다' (retrieves) implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the information comes in. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides only basic purpose without behavioral context or usage guidance, this is incomplete for effective agent use. While the tool appears simple (0 parameters, retrieval operation), the description should at minimum clarify what 'hunkuk codes' are and how results are structured since there's no output schema to provide that information.

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 with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, though the description could theoretically mention that no inputs are required (which it doesn't).

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 '훈격 코드 정보를 조회합니다' (Retrieves hunkuk code information) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and resource ('훈격 코드 정보' - hunkuk code information). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_merit_list' or 'get_workout_affil_codes' which also appear to be retrieval operations. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There's no mention of what makes hunkuk codes distinct from other code types (like workout affiliation codes from 'get_workout_affil_codes'), when this retrieval is appropriate, or any prerequisites. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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