get_analysis_guide_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns text, with no mention of side effects, destructive actions, authentication needs, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a tool that may involve user interaction or data retrieval.

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 concise, with two sentences in Korean plus a returns line. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, and output type. The 'Returns:' line could be omitted given the output schema, but it does not significantly bloat the description.

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 has no parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. However, it lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., safety, idempotency). With no annotations, more detail would be needed for full completeness.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's output and usage context.

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 returns an analysis direction guide with examples and tips. It specifies the resource ('분석 방향 안내') and the action ('반환한다'). The context of use ('사용자에게 어떤 방식으로 정리할지 질문할 때') further distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_analysis_result or get_preferences.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when asking the user how to organize'. This provides clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, though the sibling list makes alternatives obvious.

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