analyze_problem_boj

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: the tool may prompt the user to confirm the platform if it cannot be inferred from context. It also describes the content of the returned hint data. It stops short of stating side effects (e.g., read-only nature) but for an analysis tool this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence, followed by a necessary usage warning. The two sentences are dense with information and contain no filler. Slight verbosity in the warning is justified by the potential ambiguity.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, included hint components, and an important usage condition. Given there is no output schema and no annotations, it provides enough context for an agent to understand what this tool does and when to invoke it. It does not explain return format or error handling, but those are not essential for this tool's simplicity.

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% and both parameter descriptions in the schema are clear. The description's mention of '유사 문제 추천' aligns with the include_similar parameter but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, baseline 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 uses a specific verb '분석하여 제공합니다' (analyzes and provides), names the resource '백준(BOJ) 문제', and enumerates output components (알고리즘 패턴, 난이도 컨텍스트, 3단계 힌트 포인트, 유사 문제 추천). The BOJ prefix and platform warning clearly distinguish it from analyze_problem_programmers.

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 gives an explicit conditional usage guideline: if only a problem number is given, determine the platform from context, or if context is missing, verify with the user before calling. However, it does not name specific alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., generate_hint_boj), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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