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 transparency. It discloses that the starter document uses frontmatter 'theme' to determine colors and that 'kind' selects plan versus research variants. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a safe read-only operation or describe any other behavioral constraints.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core resource, followed by parameter options and a key behavioral detail. Each sentence adds useful information with minimal waste, though the phrasing is terse enough that some meaning requires inference.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main information an agent needs: what the tool returns, the supported kinds, and the theme-to-color behavior. It is not fully complete because it lacks usage context relative to siblings, but the tool's low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so for the only parameter, 'kind', by explaining the two possible values: plan(기획) and research(리서치). This adds meaning not present in the schema, though it omits any nuance about default behavior or how the value affects the returned document.

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 identifies the tool's resource as a starter Markdown document with grammar/syntax, and names the two variants (plan and research). It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves', but the tool name 'get_starter' combined with the description makes the purpose clear. It is partially distinguished from siblings by describing starter-document content and theme selection.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose get_starter over sibling tools such as list_themes, render_document, or publish_document. The description implies usage by listing the 'kind' parameter values, but it never states concrete selection criteria or alternatives.

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

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 behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of special theme values but does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether any authentication is needed, or what the response structure looks like. The agent cannot know side effects or return format from the description alone.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. The purpose is stated first, and the special value semantics follow in a compact way. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves the exact return shape unspecified. It mentions themes and representative colors, and the special value syntax, but an agent cannot know whether the response is an array of objects with id/color fields or something else without actually calling it.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain input parameters and instead adds meaning about the values it returns (the theme id formats and their visual meaning), which is useful when passing the id to render_document.

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 states the tool exposes available themes and their representative colors, and connects it to render_document's theme parameter. It is differentiated from sibling rendering/publishing tools by its role as a lookup resource. A more explicit verb like 'lists' would make it 5, but the title already conveys that.

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 when to use it by saying the id should be placed into render_document's theme parameter. It also documents special value formats ('mono', 'one:#HEX', 'one:t3'), which guides the agent in choosing a theme. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though this is a simple list operation.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the action is a publish with external visibility, specifies the repository source via an environment variable, and mentions the return of a public URL. It does not cover failure modes or side effects like overwriting, but the key traits are present.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core action is front-loaded, and the mandatory usage warning follows. Every sentence contributes.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and the decisive safety condition, but it omits parameter semantics and does not specify the response format beyond 'returns a public URL'. For a simple publish operation with two params, it is partially complete but leaves important invocation details to 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?

The description gives no explanation of either parameter. While 'html_path' is implicitly the rendered HTML file, 'slug' is completely unexplained, and the schema provides no description either (0% coverage). This is a critical gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 action (upload rendered HTML to GitHub Pages), the target repository (via environment variable), and the expected result (returns a public URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_document or list_themes, which perform different stages of the workflow.

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?

It gives an explicit condition for use: only call after user confirmation because the content becomes externally public. This provides clear context and a gate, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses a file-writing side effect with a concrete default output path (~/Documents/doc-template/<제목>-<날짜>.html), the theme fallback chain (param → frontmatter → t1), and that the result includes the file path plus contrast-check output. The main omission is overwrite behavior, which is safety-relevant for a tool that writes to disk.

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?

Three dense sentences, purpose first, then the two default behaviors, then the result shape. No filler or repetition. The structure is logical and front-loaded, though the two default clauses could have been formatted more explicitly for scanability.

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 file-writing tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: core transformation, default paths, and result contents. But it leaves overwrite semantics unexplained (critical for a tool that writes files), canonical_url's role unspecified, and the '대비 검사' (contrast check) vaguely defined. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds genuine semantics for theme (empty → frontmatter → t1) and output_path (empty → default path), which is valuable. However, overwrite and canonical_url are never mentioned, and markdown is only loosely characterized as 'Obsidian Markdown.' The compensation is partial, not complete.

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 Korean description states a specific verb and resource: '옵시디언 Markdown을 문서 템플릿 HTML(한 파일)로 만든다' (creates Obsidian Markdown into a single document-template HTML file). The input, output, and file format are all concrete. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling render_file, but the core purpose is unambiguous and distinct from list_themes, get_starter, and publish_document.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus its four siblings, especially render_file, which likely overlaps. The description explains default-value behaviors (empty theme, empty output_path) but never states selection criteria, exclusions, or a 'use render_file instead when...' condition. An agent must infer the boundary between render_document and render_file.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the side effect of writing an HTML file and the overwrite condition (only when overwrite=True). However, it omits other behavioral details such as permissions, return behavior, or effects on the original file.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and then add the important overwrite caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the core conversion and overwrite behavior but leaves theme semantics, return values, and tool selection context unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate for under-documented parameters. It adds meaning for overwrite by stating it controls overwriting existing HTML, but it does not clarify the path format or the allowed theme values, leaving those parameters ambiguous.

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 reads a Markdown file and renders it to an HTML file in the same folder with the same name. It is specific about verb, resource, and output, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling render_document.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use render_file versus the sibling tools list_themes, get_starter, render_document, or publish_document. The overwrite behavior is explained, but it is parameter behavior, not usage selection.

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