buildApplicationTimeline

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 states the tool creates a timeline but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure), whether it's a one-time generation or editable, or any side effects like saving data. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core function in a single sentence. It uses efficient language without redundancy, though the inclusion of '【일정 관리】' (schedule management) as a tag adds slight noise. Overall, it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format or behavioral details, leaving the agent uncertain about what to expect. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context on how the timeline is generated and presented, but it falls short.

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 80%, providing a solid baseline. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter meanings or interactions (e.g., how 'deadline' drives the reverse calculation, or the role of 'projectPeriodMonths'). It implies a process flow but doesn't clarify parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensation.

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's purpose: '역산 타임라인을 생성합니다' (creates a reverse timeline) for the application process from document collection to submission. It specifies the resource (application timeline) and verb (create), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'draftBusinessPlan' or 'generateDocumentChecklist' which might have overlapping domains.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the process flow but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'checkEligibility' or 'draftBusinessPlan' that might be related to application preparation. Usage is implied by the context of managing deadlines, but no explicit instructions are given.

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