Extract required documents, application period, and eligibility candidates from a Korean public notice file, with cited original text for verification. Results require review.
공고의 제출서류(필수/조건부)·신청기간·자격 후보와 원문 근거를 추출합니다. 결과는 검토가 필요합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | MCP_DATA_DIR 기준 상대 파일 경로 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by warning that results require review, signaling the extraction output is provisional rather than authoritative. No contradiction exists.
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?
Two concise sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool's extraction scope, the second gives a necessary reliability caveat. No filler or repetition.
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 simple one-parameter, read-only extraction tool with robust annotations, the description covers purpose, extraction categories, and the review caveat. The lack of an output schema means return format is unspecified, but the low complexity and clear scope make this a minor gap.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented as a relative file path under MCP_DATA_DIR. The description adds no parameter details, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic burden.
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 uses a specific verb ('추출합니다') and names the resource (공고) plus concrete extraction targets: submission documents (required/conditional), application period, qualification candidates, and source evidence. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_notice, compare_notices, and get_evidence.
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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives. It implies use on notices requiring structured extraction, but does not tell the agent when to prefer this tool over read_notice or get_evidence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.