get_region_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, but it only restates the lookup action. It does not disclose output shape, whether codes are hierarchical, possible empty results, or any other behavioral details, so the agent learns nothing beyond the basic intent.

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 compact Korean sentence with the action and object front-loaded. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a trivial zero-parameter retrieval.

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?

For a zero-parameter getter, the phrase 'region code list' covers the obvious call and return type, but with no output schema and no distinction from detailed region-code siblings, the exact scope and structure of the returned codes remain underspecified.

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 properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The 0-parameter baseline applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing arguments.

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 states a clear action ('지역 코드 목록을 조회합니다' – retrieve the region code list) and a specific resource, so an agent can identify this as a read-only list operation. However, it does not differentiate from siblings such as get_detailed_region_codes or get_subject_codes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many code-related sibling tools, such as get_detailed_region_codes, search_detailed_region_codes, or get_subject_codes. The agent is left to infer the choice purely from the tool's name.

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