analyze_structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by asserting the returned metrics are exact ('코드가 센 것이라 정확하다') and instructs the agent to cite them rather than estimate. It also details format-specific outputs, which goes beyond annotations.

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 well-structured: a concise intro, an important accuracy note, and a clear bulleted list by format. It is somewhat long but each bullet adds specific, useful information. Front-loading of purpose and usage guidance is effective.

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 is comprehensive for an analysis tool. It covers the tool's role relative to summarization, the guarantee of accurate numbers, and details what is returned for all seven supported formats. It even notes that PNG image content is handled by read_image. With an output schema present, this fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already fully describes the single 'path' parameter ('폴더 기준 상대경로. list_documents가 준 path를 그대로.') with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 analyzes the structure of a single file ('파일 하나의 구조를 분석한다'), and the context of '요약 전에' positions it as a pre-summarization step. It is explicit about being structure-focused rather than content-focused, distinguishing it from siblings like extract_content and read_image.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: '요약 전에 이걸 먼저 보면' (use before summarizing). Also names an alternative for PNG content: '이미지 내용은 read_image로 확인' (for image content, use read_image), directing the agent away from this tool for that specific case.

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