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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool analyzes code quality based on guidelines, it doesn't describe what the analysis produces (report format, scoring system), whether it modifies files (likely read-only but not stated), performance characteristics, or error conditions. The description is too vague about the actual behavior.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds context about the analysis framework. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more informative given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 code analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of output to expect (analysis report, score, recommendations), how comprehensive the analysis is, what happens with invalid inputs, or how the guide integration works. The agent would be operating with significant uncertainty about the tool's behavior and results.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions '가이드 문서를 참조하여' (referring to guide documents) which loosely relates to the 'guideName' parameter but provides no additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 purpose: '검사합니다' (inspects/examines) files based on clean code guidelines. It specifies the resource (files) and the framework (clean code guide). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_guide' or 'read_file' - this tool performs analysis while those likely retrieve documents or raw file content.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this analysis tool should be chosen over simply reading the guide with 'get_guide' or examining raw file content with 'read_file'. There's no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or limitations.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading and returning content, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details like output type or constraints.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values (e.g., format of the content), error cases, or any behavioral traits like file access permissions. This makes it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'fileName' documented as '읽을 가이드 파일명' (guide filename to read). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as file format details or path requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '가이드 문서의 내용을 읽어서 반환합니다' (reads and returns the content of a guide document) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('읽어서' - reads) and resource ('가이드 문서' - guide document). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_file' which might have overlapping functionality, making it somewhat vague in context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_file' or 'check_clean_code'. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads and returns files, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't address critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist or is unreadable), file size limits, encoding assumptions, or security considerations. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic 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 extremely concise—just two sentences that directly state the tool's function and path usage. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and follows up with practical details.

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-reading tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'returns' means (e.g., content as string, binary data, structured format), error conditions, or performance implications. Given the complexity of file I/O and lack of structured safety hints, more behavioral context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'filePath' clearly documented as the path to read (including examples). The description adds marginal value by mentioning support for both absolute paths and relative paths from the current working directory, which slightly expands on the schema's example. However, this doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 purpose: 'read files from external projects and return them' (verb+resource). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'check_clean_code' and 'get_guide' by focusing on file reading rather than code analysis or documentation retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself beyond the general domain difference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'external projects' but doesn't clarify what qualifies as external or when to use this over other file-reading methods. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools.

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