개념 조회

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. Because no output schema exists, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating five distinct returned elements, including the immediate predecessor and immediately unlocked concept in the graph. It does not state behavior for a nonexistent id, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

It is a single tightly packed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned contents listed afterward, with no filler. The parenthetical unpacking of '정의' adds useful detail at low cost, though the enumeration grows slightly dense.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool this covers the return payload reasonably, which matters since there is no output schema. However, the shape of fields like '중요도' and '출제 정보' remains undefined, and nothing is said about failure when the id does not exist.

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 single 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should explain what the id identifies and where it comes from (for example, an id returned by search_concepts). Instead it says nothing about the parameter, leaving the agent to infer that it is a concept identifier.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource ('개념 하나의 ... 돌려준다') and enumerates what the single concept record contains: definition rationale, core, calculation reason, importance, exam info, and adjacent concepts in the graph. This clearly separates it from search_concepts, which returns multiple matches. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, keeping it below a 5.

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 statement about when to use this tool versus search_concepts, get_prerequisite_path, or the other siblings, and no prerequisites such as needing an id from a prior search. Usage is only inferable from the singular 'id'-based shape. No exclusions or routing guidance are given.

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