Retrieve honor grade codes for Korean independence patriots to facilitate accurate filtering and categorization of merit records from official archives.
훈격 코드 정보를 조회합니다
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 'retrieves' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify 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 is insufficient behavioral context.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, preventing a perfect score.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a retrieval operation that likely returns structured data, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'hunkuk codes' are, what format the information returns in, or any behavioral characteristics. For a data retrieval tool without structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.
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, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation (none). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters with complete schema coverage is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what's already clear from the 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 states the purpose as 'retrieves hunkuk code information' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'get_merit_list' or 'get_workout_affil_codes' - all appear to be retrieval operations for different data types. 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 prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other retrieval tools in the sibling list, or any context about what 'hunkuk codes' represent. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.