create_subnet

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 subnet, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., impact on network routing), rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste—every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the core action and resource.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 6 required parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., create_vpc). For a tool that creates network resources, more context is needed to guide effective use by an AI agent.

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 clearly documented in the schema (e.g., subnetName, vpcNo, subnet CIDR). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. Baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 action ('새로운 서브넷을 생성합니다' translates to 'creates a new subnet') and identifies the resource (subnet). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_subnet, list_subnets, and create_vpc by specifying creation rather than deletion, listing, or VPC creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like create_server or create_acg beyond the resource name.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing VPC), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like create_vpc (which might be required first) or list_subnets (for checking existing subnets). Usage is implied only by the action verb 'creates'.

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