get_workshop_item_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses returned data fields, but it does not mention authorization, rate limits, error behavior, or confirm the read-only nature explicitly, though '조회' implies a safe read.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by useful return data and a concrete example; no wasted sentences.

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 one-parameter detail query with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return contents, and an invocation example. It could add caveats around invalid IDs or limits, but is not incomplete.

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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter (published file ID list), and the description's example only illustrates values without adding semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('조회합니다' - retrieve) and resource ('워크샵 아이템의 상세 정보' - workshop item details), and the return-data breakdown (metadata, tags, preview image, dependencies, stats) clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tool get_workshop_items.

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 implies this is for retrieving item details and provides a usage example, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_workshop_items) or mention exclusions/prerequisites.

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