NAVER WORKS MCP 상태

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states no secrets are used and checks configuration aspects, implying a safe read-only operation, but does not describe output format, response shape, or any edge-case behavior.

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?

A single Korean sentence efficiently lists exactly what configuration aspects are verified and explicitly notes no secrets are involved. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter health check with a clear scope of what it reports, the description is reasonably complete. It does not mention output format, but with no output schema and a well-scoped purpose, the description covers the essential expectations adequately.

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 zero parameters, which the input schema already makes clear. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4, and the description adds context about what information (server version, auth mode, scope policy) is being surfaced, which helps the agent know what to expect.

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 checks server version, MCP transport statelessness, auth mode, and scope policy. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are all resource-specific (profile, calendar, contacts) — a health/status check is clearly differentiated.

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 implies this is a diagnostic/status tool to verify server configuration without secrets, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name alternatives, relying on the distinct health-related purpose.

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