list_work_logs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read via '조회' and says nothing about pagination, result limits, sort order, or default scope. For a list tool with zero structured safety metadata, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is minimal to the point of conveying almost nothing actionable. It is concise without being informative.

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-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the essentials are technically covered by the name and schema. Missing pagination, ordering, and default-scope information keeps it at merely adequate.

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% and the single optional 'query' parameter is already documented as a search term, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, matching-rule, or empty-string semantics 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 states a specific verb (조회합니다 / retrieve) and resource (업무 일지 목록 / work log list), so an agent can tell it apart from mutation siblings like add_work_log. It does not, however, contrast itself with the other list-style sibling (list_maintenance_sites) or clarify scope beyond the resource noun.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_work_log or search_troubleshooting, nor any mention of the optional keyword filter or default ordering/paging. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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