Retrieve required input templates and formatting rules for HR rosters, financials, decision logs, and milestones before running an organizational diagnostic.
입력 자료 양식(인원 명단 CSV, 재무, 의사결정 기록, 마일스톤)과 작성 규칙을 돌려줍니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 must carry the behavioral burden. It says the tool returns templates and rules, but does not state read-only behavior, side effects, auth requirements, or the response format.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element adds useful scope information.
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 simple no-parameter getter, knowing what categories are returned is useful. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the response structure or how the templates/rules are presented, leaving an agent partly blind after invocation.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score for a no-parameter tool 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 names a specific verb/resource: returns input-data templates and writing rules, with concrete examples (roster CSV, finance, decision records, milestones). It is clearly differentiated from sibling action tools, though it does not explicitly compare itself with get_catalog or get_case.
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?
It states what the tool returns but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling tools. The use case is inferable from the name and content, but not actually guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.