KRDS 컴포넌트 공급

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the conditional output (markup only when required inputs are supplied, otherwise fill-in guidance) and enumerates the returned artifacts. Missing permissions, rate limits, or error semantics, but the core conditional behavior is clearly 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the guarantees, then the fallback behavior. No filler, though the middle sentence bundles three distinct outputs into one long clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly explains the return payload (markup, KWCAG coverage, required inputs, post-assembly checks). Combined with a 100%-documented schema and a nested inputs object, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though sibling routing remains unspecified.

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 schema already documents componentId, variant, and the nested inputs object in detail. The description's mention of mandatory user-supplied values mirrors the inputs parameter concept but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the kit markup and accessibility requirements for a KRDS component, plus the KWCAG items it guarantees. An agent can tell this fetches a single component's definition, but the description never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like list_components or get_requirements.

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 is implied by the discussed return content and the note that missing required inputs yields guidance instead of markup, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement nor any comparison against list_components, get_requirements, or validate_page. The agent must infer the correct entry point on its own.

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