list_qa_items

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It notably discloses that the tool automatically syncs the 'data/sheets/' folder before retrieval ('조회 전 data/sheets/ 폴더를 자동 동기화합니다'), which is a significant side effect not evident from the schema. This goes beyond basic purpose and gives the agent awareness of pre-conditions. However, it does not mention the return format or potential read-only nature, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences, directly states the primary purpose first, then adds the key behavioral note about auto-sync. Every word is functional, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and compact.

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 tool's low complexity (2 optional string params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains the main action, the filters, and a notable pre-execution side effect. The absence of return-format details is acceptable since no output schema exists and the purpose is straightforward. It fully equips an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'site' and 'account' have descriptions in the schema ('특정 사이트 키로 필터 (생략 시 전체)'). The description mentions filtering by site and account but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain formats, value constraints, or relationships between parameters, 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 clearly states the tool's function: '등록된 검수 항목 목록을 조회합니다' (retrieves the list of registered QA items). It specifies the resource (검수 항목/QA items) and the action (조회/retrieve list), and mentions optional filters (site, account). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_qa_sheet, update_qa_item, and run_qa, which perform different actions.

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 clear context for usage: it is a list operation with optional site and account filters. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, but the nature of the tool (listing) is self-evident and distinct from siblings. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, so it falls just short of a 5.

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