mfds_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by listing the specific types of diagnostic data returned (e.g., attachment parsing failures, structure warnings). However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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, compact sentence that lists the output categories. It is front-loaded with '진단:' to indicate purpose. While efficient, the list format could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing.

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 description is marginally adequate given the presence of an output schema and no parameters. However, it is very terse and does not explain the context (e.g., what 'board' refers to) or the structure of the output. An agent might need more context to fully understand the returned data.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract.

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 provides diagnostic information: document counts, status distribution, attachment parsing failures, last crawl time, and structure warnings. It specifies the resource (system status) and the action (diagnosis). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, and the purpose could be more action-oriented.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The agent is left to infer usage from the context alone.

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