agm_agenda_xml

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes XML parsing and fallback, but lacks explicit statement on side effects, read-only nature, or auth requirements. Could be more transparent about safety.

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?

Well-structured with sections (desc, when, rule, ref, args). Front-loaded with purpose and conditions. Some redundancy between description and arg list, but overall efficient.

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 existence of output schema (context signal), description need not explain return values. Covers usage conditions, fallback, prerequisites, and format options. Adequately addresses complexity with references to related tools.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but description provides detailed parameter documentation for all 5 parameters, including examples, default values, and behavior (e.g., rcept_no priority, use_llm fallback). Fully compensates for schema gap.

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?

Description clearly states tool structures agenda items list in tree format. Verb '구조화' plus resource '의안(안건) 목록' makes purpose clear. References sibling tools like agm_items and agm_parse_fallback for 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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: [tier-5 Detail] when user requests agenda details. Provides fallback rule (agm_parse_fallback), prerequisite (corp_identifier if uncertain), and references to manual. Also explains auto-search behavior with ticker only.

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