내 연차 정보

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what the response actually contains — accrual, usage, remaining amounts, and the leave unit — which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention anything about authentication, the scope beyond 'my own', or recency of the data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the substantive content (which leave figures are returned) is packed into it. It is not verbose, though it does leave the positioning relative to the vacation-application siblings unstated.

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 zero-parameter, read-only query with no output schema, the description supplies enough: the scope (my own leave), the data returned (accrued, used, remaining, unit), and the read nature confirmed by annotations. Only the relation to the prepare/commit vacation tools is left out.

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 tool takes no input parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies there are no filters to supply and that the query is implicitly scoped to the calling user.

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 names a specific verb (조회한다 / retrieve) and a specific resource set: accrued, used, and remaining annual leave plus its unit, for the current user (내). That distinguishes it in substance from the prepare_/commit_vacation tools, but it never names those siblings explicitly and never states that this is the read-only counterpart to the vacation-application flow.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With a large sibling family containing jade_prepare_vacation and jade_commit_vacation, an agent must infer on its own that this tool answers 'how much leave do I have left' rather than 'apply for leave.' The single word 조회 only implies a read.

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