monitor_working_percent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says '조회한다' (query), indicating a read operation, but gives no details about whether it depends on a selected site, whether it is current or historical, or what exactly the returned rate represents.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is terse enough that some behavioral context is missing.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no schema complexity, the description lacks important context such as whether the result is a single aggregate percentage, per-device values, or dependent on an active site selection. With no output schema and no annotations, this leaves the agent guessing about the return shape and prerequisites.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent to resolve. The baseline score of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 and resource: it queries the normal operation rate of measuring instruments. This is clear enough in isolation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling monitor_* tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus monitor_device_state, monitor_fault_devices, monitor_data_count, or other related siblings. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the phrase '정상 가동률'.

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