get_day_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('조회한다') but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention authorization needs, rate limits, or the nature of the output beyond 'markdown content'. The description is minimal but adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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: two sentences for purpose and use case, followed by bullet-like parameter descriptions. No extraneous information. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Appropriate length for a simple tool.

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 (2 parameters, no enums), the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description covers purpose, use case, and parameter meanings. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating it is read-only, but overall it is sufficient for its complexity.

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 includes parameter explanations in the 'Args' section: trip_id as '여행 ID' and day_id as '일자 ID (get_trip에서 확인)'. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by adding meaningful context for both parameters, including a hint on how to obtain day_id.

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 that this tool retrieves the full markdown content of a day ('일자의 전체 마크다운 콘텐츠를 조회한다'), with a specific use case mentioned ('활동 변환 시 원본 확인용'). The verb '조회' (retrieve) and the resource (day content) are explicit, and the name 'get_day_content' aligns with the description, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'clear_day_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 a clear context for use ('활동 변환 시 원본 확인용' - when converting activities to check the original) and references 'get_trip' for obtaining the day_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools, leaving some gaps for the agent to infer.

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