KRDS 페이지 뼈대

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

Annotations only declare read-only/idempotent safety; the description adds the error contract (missing pageTitle or required slots produce an isError that tells you what to supply) and the return shape (markdown with page HTML, accessibility-correction notes, assembly instructions). This is exactly the kind of non-schema behavior an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and call ordering, then pattern requirements, then options, then return format. Dense but nearly every sentence carries a decision the agent must make; the long inline enumeration of 13 pattern names is the only bulky stretch, and it earns its place as the selection menu.

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 13-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the generation workflow, the pattern-vs-empty-scaffold branch, error behavior, and output composition. Rich per-parameter details (siteMenu tree semantics, assetBase defaults) are left to the schema, which already handles them.

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 every parameter is already documented, and the description's parameter content (pattern list, withSiteChrome assembling banner/header/footer, slot discovery via isError) largely restates what the schema says. It adds the workflow hint that slots should be omitted on a first call, but nothing about syntax or value formats 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 and resource ('KRDS 페이지의 시작 골격을 반환한다') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_component by establishing call ordering. An agent can tell what it produces (page HTML or include fragments) without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to call this before get_component, to use a named pattern for standard screens (로그인·신청·검색·게시판) rather than hand-rolling layout, and to fill body parts with get_component afterward. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-improvise are stated.

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