Chosun Verification Report

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what is immediately obvious. With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it lacks information on side effects (e.g., read-only guarantee), error handling, or what happens if checks fail. It only states 'run checks' and 'return report', leaving significant gaps.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits important details like what specifically is checked or the report format. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 parameter count (4), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the report's content, format, or how to interpret results. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively, especially since it combines multiple underlying checks.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present in the input schema. The description's reference to 'same checks as MCP verification log' provides context but not parameter-level detail. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'run' and the resource 'portal and academic-system checks' with an outcome 'return a compact report'. It also references the MCP verification log, providing context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this composite tool from the individual sibling tools (e.g., chosun_timetable, chosun_graduation_diagnosis), though the composite nature is implied.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The description implies it is for running the verification log checks, but without telling the agent when a combined report is preferred over individual checks.

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