대표에게 결정 하나 묻고 답 받기

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the blocking nature (up to maxWaitSec), the result states (answered with decision/text/choice shape, timeout, no-baseline), the no-email-resend semantics on retry, and a server-side rejection of secrets/PII. It even flags the client timeout prerequisite, which is exactly the operational context 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?

Despite the tool's complexity, the text is front-loaded with the purpose and then the flow, statuses, and constraints in tightly packed sentences. It is dense but each clause carries information (workflow, statuses, retry, safety, timeout), with little wasted prose.

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 9-parameter blocking decision workflow with no output schema, the description covers the flow, the three result statuses, retry behavior, and safety constraints, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It lists 'no-baseline' as a status without explaining what it means, a small residual gap.

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 the schema already documents each parameter (baseline 3). The description adds cross-parameter behavior the schema cannot express: giving only 'issue' without 'question' triggers a re-wait, and 'issue' alone is the timeout re-call form. This meaningfully exceeds the schema's per-field documentation.

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+resource ('대표에게 결정 하나 묻고 답 받기') and lays out the full flow (create issue/comment → email → wait → parse reply → update baseline), so an agent understands exactly what it does. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like wyea_create_issue or wyea_wait to route against them, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'결정이 필요할 때' gives a clear triggering condition, and the description explains the timeout re-call path ('wyea_ask({issue}) 만 그대로 다시 호출, 메일 재발송 없음') and the question-less re-wait case. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling issue/comment/wait tools, so alternatives remain implicit.

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