인기 카테고리

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves frequently used categories and displays top-level ones first, which provides some behavioral context. However, it doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be needed, rate limits, or what format the results will be in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise - just two short sentences that communicate the essential information. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a behavioral detail about display priority. This is an excellent example of efficient description writing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does and a key behavioral aspect (top-level priority), but doesn't address what the output looks like or any operational constraints. For such a simple read operation, this is minimally viable but could benefit from more complete behavioral context.

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 description doesn't mention any parameters, but with 100% schema description coverage and only one optional parameter (limit with clear documentation), this is acceptable. The schema fully documents the single parameter with description, type, constraints, and default value. Since there are no parameters that need semantic explanation beyond what the schema provides, a score of 4 is appropriate for this simple case.

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 action ('조회합니다' - retrieves) and resource ('자주 사용되는 주요 카테고리 목록' - frequently used main category list), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on categories rather than books or search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_categories' which might also retrieve categories.

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 minimal usage guidance - only mentioning that it displays top-level categories first. There's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_categories' or other sibling tools that retrieve different types of data. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with alternatives are provided.

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