register_qa_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it parses Excel, registers items, avoids DOM collection, stores only metadata, and returns groups/independent_items classification. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing items, required permissions, or error/edge-case behavior, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation-like operation.

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, efficient and front-loaded. It states the core action first, then adds a meaningful constraint and return-value note without unnecessary detail.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. The main gap is the lack of detail about error behavior or post-conditions, but this is acceptable for the low complexity.

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 documents the only parameter (sheet_path) with a clear description ('Excel(.xlsx) 파일의 절대 경로'). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 specifies the exact verb and resource: parsing an Excel .xlsx inspection sheet and registering its items. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating it does not perform DOM collection, and clarifies its scope as metadata-only storage.

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 when to use the tool (register items from an inspection sheet) and an explicit exclusion: 'DOM 수집은 하지 않고' (does not perform DOM collection). It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the usage boundaries are reasonably clear.

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