Retrieve diagnostic catalog sections—patterns, metrics, evidence, terms, and rules—to support HR and organizational hypothesis testing.
카탈로그 조회. section: patterns(14개 패턴·62개 가설·8D) | metrics(15개 지표) | evidence(증거 적합도 라이브러리) | terms(한국어 용어집) | rules(스크리닝·판정 기준).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | patterns |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; '조회' implies a read-only retrieval, which is useful, and it discloses the catalog's contents and counts. However it does not confirm read-only status, pagination, or return shape, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a zero-annotation 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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first phrase, and the pipe-delimited section list is dense and waste-free. Slightly terse given it omits the default value and the fact that section is optional.
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 single optional parameter with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately tells the agent what values to pass and what each contains. It does not describe what a catalog lookup returns or note that section defaults to 'patterns', which leaves a modest gap.
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?
With 0% schema coverage and no enum, the description is the only place that defines the parameter's valid values: patterns, metrics, evidence, terms, rules. It even attaches meaning and counts to each option (14 patterns/62 hypotheses/8D, 15 metrics, etc.), fully compensating for the schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('카탈로그 조회' = catalog lookup) and enumerates the five sections it covers, which effectively separates this reference-data tool from the analytic siblings (compute_metrics, assess_stage, etc.). It does not name any sibling directly, 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as get_input_templates or screen_patterns. The section list hints at what can be retrieved but never states the condition under which an agent should call this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.