article_templates

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '조회' (retrieve) conveys that this is a read-only operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response structure looks like. For a simple lookup, the read-only implication is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, focused sentence that states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), but the description is minimal. It does not describe the return format (e.g., list vs. object), nor does it provide usage context with respect to article creation or other workflows. Given the absence of an output schema, this omission leaves some uncertainty about the tool's behavior, though the core purpose is clear.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters, including enums and default values for 'language'. The description itself does not add any information about the parameters beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb '조회합니다' (retrieves) and clearly names the resource as '사용 가능한 아티클 템플릿과 톤앤매너 가이드' (available article templates and tone & manner guides). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on articles, RSS, or analytics. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, so a perfect 5 is not warranted.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer its usage. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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