KWCAG 검사항목 조회

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the description only needs to add contextual detail. It adds the accepted lookup keys and KWCAG 2.2 version, but it does not clarify what summary vs full returns or how results are formatted. 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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the resource, action, and all supported query forms with no filler. It is compact and easy for an agent to scan.

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 read-only lookup tool with a simple two-parameter schema and clear annotations, the description conveys the query scope needed for correct invocation. The summary/full payload difference is left unspecified, but that does not prevent an agent from selecting or calling the tool correctly.

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 roughly 50%: the query parameter has a description, while detail has only an enum and default. The description repeats much of the query schema content but adds 'alias' and 'wcag:' prefix semantics; it does not clarify the difference between summary and full.

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 ('조회한다'), names the resource ('KWCAG 2.2 검사항목'), and enumerates the query dimensions (official ID/alias, WCAG SC, axe rule ID, keyword). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as get_checklist, so some sibling distinction is left to inference.

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 the look-up use case: call this when you need KWCAG items by ID, WCAG SC, axe rule, or keyword. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives, so an agent must infer how it relates to siblings.

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