KRDS 컴포넌트 목록

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the payload shape: each entry carries id, name, and a count of mandatory accessibility inputs. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or caching, but for a zero-parameter read-only catalog the disclosed return semantics are the material trait.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and payload, followed immediately by the cross-reference. No filler or restated name/title.

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 must describe returns, and it does so adequately by enumerating the item fields and noting the accessibility count. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, missing only secondary details like ordering or total-count guarantees.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is unconditional, needing no filtering input.

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 ('사용 가능한 KRDS 컴포넌트 43종의 색인을 반환한다') and even quantifies scope (43 items). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_component, which handles markup and detailed 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?

It names the alternative tool explicitly ('마크업과 상세 요건은 get_component로 조회한다'), giving clear routing between index-level and detail-level queries. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use trigger for the listing itself (e.g. discovery vs. validation workflows), so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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