오늘 해야 할 일 후보 생성

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explaining the combination logic (reference date + schedule candidates) and specifying outputs (today's tasks and imminent schedule candidates). No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured Korean sentence that front-loads the core function. No redundant or unnecessary words. Achieves clarity in minimal space.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (12 parameters, many date fields), the description only provides a high-level overview. It omits details like how 'schedule candidates' are determined or the role of the stage parameter. The existence of an output schema partially compensates, but behavioral completeness is lacking.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details or interaction guidance. It does not explain how parameters like stage or region affect the output.

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?

Description uses specific verbs ('combines', 'returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('today's tasks and imminent schedule candidates'). Distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_calendar_items' and 'generate_pre_contract_checklist' by focusing on daily tasks based on combined dates and transaction types.

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 the tool is for generating a task list for today based on input dates and transaction type. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., generate_calendar_items for calendar output). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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