correction_devices

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The verb '조회한다' implies a read-only query, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, auth requirements, or output structure. It discloses the subject matter but lacks deeper behavioral context such as whether results are ordered, paginated, or scoped.

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 concise Korean sentence that efficiently states the action and the target resource. There is no redundant or filler text, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description is the primary spec. It clearly states what is retrieved, but it leaves some ambiguity about the exact composition of the result (e.g., whether 'list' and 'status' are separate fields or one combined view). A slightly richer description would make the response shape clearer, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). With no parameters to document, the description need not add parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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' (queries/retrieves) and names a concrete resource: the list of correction-target measuring instruments and their correction application status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like correction_factors or correction_trend by scope, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as correction_factors, correction_trend, or correction_versions. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context clues about the intended use case.

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