SPA 프레임워크 × 킷 충돌 가이드

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it names the root cause (kit JS initializes once on DOMContentLoaded and is unaware of client routing) and characterizes the return as conflict diagnoses plus field-verified prescriptions. It doesn't restate read-only safety, but 'get_...guide' plus the content description make the operation type evident.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler, and the failure scenario is front-loaded before the directive. Slightly dense but every clause 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 single optional-enum, no-output-schema guide tool, the description covers what it returns (conflicts + prescriptions) and when to reach for it. Return-value detail is general rather than structured, but adequate given the 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 the enum values (react/nextjs) are documented in the schema, including the empty-value behavior. The description only echoes the React/Next.js scope, adding no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('returns conflicts and verified prescriptions for the kit in React·Next.js') and names the concrete symptoms (tabs, accordion, GNB failing in SPA), which is clearly distinct from the component-listing siblings. No explicit sibling comparison, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('if kit widgets don't work in SPA') and a strong directive to consult it before inventing a workaround. It lacks a named alternative tool, but the when-to-use context is explicit.

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