get_workout_affil_codes

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 only states that it retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 in Korean that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by including key details like scope or output format.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '운동계열 코드 정보' entails (e.g., code values, descriptions, categories), the return format, or any behavioral traits. For a tool that might return complex data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its functionality.

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% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional value is provided, but none is required 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 states the purpose ('조회합니다' meaning 'retrieves' or 'queries') and resource ('운동계열 코드 정보' meaning 'workout series code information'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_hunkuk_codes' or 'get_merit_list', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific code retrieval tool versus others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about its specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for administrative purposes or general lookup. With sibling tools like 'get_hunkuk_codes' and 'get_merit_list' available, this omission is notable.

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