Get borrowing and return usage trends for a library, broken down by day of the week or hourly time slot, to analyze usage patterns.
도서관별 대출반납 추이를 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | 조회기준 (D=요일별, H=시간대별) | |
| libCode | Yes | 도서관코드 - search_library_codes 도구로 검색하세요 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says it retrieves a trend, with no information about output format, pagination, or any limitations. This is a minimal statement that does not convey behavior beyond the basic action.
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, concise sentence that states the purpose directly. It is front-loaded and has no redundant information. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, so a 4 rather than 5.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description, the agent lacks critical context such as what the returned trend looks like, any time-range constraints, or how the data is aggregated. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for a data-retrieval tool.
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 already documents both parameters fully (libCode and type with enums), and coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb (조회합니다 = retrieves) and the resource (도서관별 대출반납 추이 = loan/return trend by library). It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like get_book_usage_analysis. The resource is well-defined.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must infer its applicability from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.