바뀐 파일 목록

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the list is exhaustive and rule-independent. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or return format, leaving some gaps.

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, efficiently structured sentence with two clauses: the core function and the completeness guarantee. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not mention return values, pagination, or how parameters interact. The completeness guarantee is useful, but the tool lacks contextual depth for an agent to fully understand invocation behavior.

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 only 20% (only limit has a description), and the tool description adds no detail about parameters. The phrase '그 시간대' loosely hints at a time range but does not link to caseId or explain repo, branch, or onlyWithSignals. The description fails to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the tool lists changed files during a time period, using the specific verb '나열합니다' (lists) and a specific resource. The added guarantee that no changes are missing (여기 없는 변경은 없습니다) distinguishes it from rule-based sibling tools like scan or triage.

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: when you need a complete, unfiltered list of changes regardless of rules. This provides clear context that alternatives may be rule-based, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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