Get Flow project columns

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states that the tool retrieves columns, giving no information about return format, pagination, error behavior, or authorization requirements. This is insufficient for the agent to understand side effects or data semantics.

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 concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's core action and resource. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant words, though it is so brief that it borders on under-specification.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description should provide extra context about what the returned column list looks like and how it relates to status columns. The current one-liner offers no guidance on response structure or when to use this over related tools, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 schema provides descriptions only for userId ('프로젝트 컬럼 조회 기준 사용자 ID'), while projectId, apiKey, and baseUrl have no description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and with only 25% schema coverage, it fails to compensate for the lack of documentation on the remaining parameters.

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 tool retrieves the column list of a Flow project using the verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) and the resource 'Flow 프로젝트 컬럼' (Flow project columns). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool get_project_status_columns, which likely returns status columns specifically, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_status_columns or list_projects. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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