compute_baseline_findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds crucial non-obvious behavior: it ignores the '이슈리스크' text and computes only from date/completion fields. It also explains the strategic rationale—catching delayed tasks that failed to write an issue—which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the key constraint in bold and uses short bullets and examples. It is slightly more verbose than strictly necessary due to rhetorical rationale ('그것이 핵심입니다'), but every substantive part earns its place by preventing misuse.

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 output schema exists, all parameters are optional with defaults, annotations cover safety, and the description covers purpose, non-usage, return summary, and examples, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter already documented including defaults and allowed values for '구분'. The description reinforces the original-data theme but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '원본 데이터만으로 판정 5종(신규완료·지연·일정변경·역행·미제출)을 계산합니다.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from report-based tools by stating it does not take reports as input, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('이번 주에 보고되어야 할 변동이 뭔가요?') and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives: '보고서와 대조하려면 → check_completeness / verify_claims.' It also stresses that the tool should be used for original-data-only determination, not report comparison.

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