도구 실행 프록시

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add some context by noting that it includes hidden tools ('숨김 포함'), which is useful. However, it fails to disclose that invoking arbitrary tools via this proxy can have side effects, that the actual behavior is dependent on the called tool, or that return values may vary. This is a significant gap for a dynamic execution tool.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It front-loads the verb and resource, with no extraneous information. Perfect conciseness.

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?

Despite the simple concept, the tool is a proxy with arbitrary behavior. The description lacks information about error handling, return format, or the fact that it can invoke any registered tool, which is critical for an agent to use it safely. The schema covers parameter names but not the broader context of what happens when a tool is called or if it fails. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes this minimal description insufficient.

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 100%, providing clear explanations for both 'name' and 'args' parameters. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating 'by name and arguments.' Thus, it meets the baseline but adds no value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Calls registered tools (including hidden) by name and arguments.' It identifies the specific verb (호출합니다) and resource (등록된 도구), and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all domain-specific health information tools. This is a general-purpose proxy tool.

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. It does not mention that it should be used after discovering tools via discover_tools, nor does it explain scenarios where direct tool invocation is preferred. The only hint is in the schema parameter description for 'name', but the main description lacks any usage context.

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