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

No annotations provided, and description only says 'recent' without defining time range, scope (e.g., per user), or confirming read-only behavior. Lacks key behavioral details.

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?

Single-sentence description with no redundant information, extremely concise.

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?

Given no output schema and simple input, description fails to hint at return format, ordering, or date range for 'recent'. Incomplete for a history 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?

Schema covers the single parameter 'limit' with its description, so description adds no new semantic value beyond contextualizing that it retrieves history.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('조회합니다' = retrieves) and resource ('PDF 정리 이력' = PDF organization history), distinguishing itself from sibling tools like listing folders or organizing PDFs.

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?

Usage context is implied—retrieving recent history of organizes—but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states it lists folders and PDF counts, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any permission requirements, or potential side effects (e.g., indexing delay).

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core action and output. It is front-loaded with the verb '조회' and specifies the resource and result.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It indicates the return includes folder names and PDF counts, which is sufficient for a list operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool retrieves a list of date folders and the count of PDF files in each. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_pdfs_in_folder, which lists PDFs in a specific folder, and organize_by_file_date, which reorganizes files.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing it over sibling tools like organize_directory or get_history.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or any side effects. Simple list operation is implied but not explicitly stated.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. No wasted words, but it lacks additional context that could be provided without significant bloat.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return behavior, error cases, or the folder structure assumed. A more complete description would benefit the agent.

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 the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. 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?

Description clearly states the verb-resource combination: listing PDF files in a date folder. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_date_folders or organize_pdf, which could overlap in intent.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It mentions the core action and date criteria but fails to disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting, permissions), error handling, or folder naming conventions beyond the example. Limited transparency for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 two sentences long with no fluff. It front-loads the action and parameter detail, then provides an illustrative example. 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?

The description covers the core purpose adequately but omits behavioral details (error handling, folder naming pattern specification) and does not clarify the relationship with sibling tools. The lack of output schema increases the need for description completeness, which is only partially met.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds a useful example of folder naming, but otherwise repeats information already in the schema (e.g., date_type). The value added is marginal, meeting the baseline 3.

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 that the tool classifies PDF files into date-based folders based on their modification or creation date. It provides a concrete example ('2026년 06월 11일') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like organize_directory or organize_pdf that likely do not sort by date.

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 implies the tool is for date-based organization but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., organize_pdf). There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling tool names.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions organizing PDFs into today's folder but omits key behaviors: copy vs move, recursive scanning, date_override, folder creation, and file conflict handling.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence efficiently conveys the main purpose. However, it could include a brief mention of key options (date_override, copy/move) without significantly increasing length.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. Missing details on return values, error conditions, folder creation behavior, and default actions (move vs copy). The tool is moderately complex but the description does not fully equip an agent.

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% (all parameters described). The description provides overall context (PDF files into today's folder) but adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the tool organizes all PDF files in a directory into today's date folder (오늘 날짜 폴더). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'organize_by_file_date' which uses file dates rather than today's date.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (organize_by_file_date, organize_pdf, etc.). The description only states what it does without specifying scenarios or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It does not explain folder creation behavior, overwrite policy, error handling, or what happens to the original file after move/copy. The copy default (false = move) is only in the schema, not description.

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 concise sentences in Korean, front-loaded with the main action. No redundant information. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return value or side effects. It does not mention what happens after execution (e.g., success message, file moved). Optional parameters (copy, date_override) are not addressed in description. Incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 3. The description adds the date folder format (YYYY년 MM월 DD일) and clarifies that base_dir is the root folder. However, it does not explain the copy and date_override parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 action (organize PDFs) and resource (PDF files) into a date folder. It specifies the date format (YYYY년 MM월 DD일). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like organize_by_file_date or organize_directory, which could confuse selection.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or conditions under which organizing into today's folder is appropriate compared to other organization strategies.

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