generate_review_template_programmers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool generates a guide with specific components and includes a critical behavioral caveat (checking platform before calling). However, it does not detail side effects, authentication needs, or what happens on invalid input, though for a generation tool this is less critical.

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?

Two compact sentences and a warning; the first sentence states purpose and deliverables, the second provides a crucial usage hint. No fluff, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently describes what the tool does, what it produces (template, analysis, prompt), and the key edge case (platform ambiguity). The agent has enough to invoke it correctly without additional missing context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value to the problem_id parameter by warning about ambiguity when only a number is supplied, implying the tool may need platform clarification. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'ID or URL' description.

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 ('제공합니다' - provides) and a clear resource ('프로그래머스 문제에 대한 복기용 가이드'), listing concrete deliverables (markdown template, problem analysis, writing prompts). It clearly distinguishes from the BOJ sibling by specifying the platform, and the warning about platform discrimination further clarifies its scope.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: for Programmers problems, and crucially instructs the agent to confirm the platform if only a problem number is given without context. This is direct, actionable usage guidance that prevents incorrect tool selection across the BOJ/Programmers sibling pair.

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