get_reports

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. '조회' implies a read operation, but no explicit statement of non-destructiveness, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior is provided. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 concise sentence. The parenthetical about business requirements is extra context but does not detract. It is efficient with no redundant wording.

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?

There is no output schema and no description of the return structure (e.g., array of report objects) or pagination details. Behavioral aspects like how 'first' affects results are not explained. For a list-retrieval tool, this is incomplete for agents to use without extra inference.

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%, so all three parameters (text, first, moduleName) are already documented. The description does not add additional semantics or clarify usage beyond the schema, which is already sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb '조회' (retrieve) and the resource '보고서 목록' (list of reports) with included fields. It is specific about what it does but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_report_result_data, which could be a related tool for fetching report data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it mention any related tools or conditions. The context '정기 보고/대시보드 현황 파악' is a business requirement but does not provide tool-selection criteria.

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