design_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool only outputs flow and basis, not calculations or final judgments, which is a key behavioral boundary. It also mentions the ask-back behavior for ambiguous cases. However, it does not describe what happens on invalid inputs, potential failure modes, or how the output is structured (beyond flow + source), which leaves gaps for an agent.

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 concise and uses a clear format with parameter definitions on separate lines and important notes highlighted with ★. It front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates parameters. Every sentence contributes value, though the mix of usage notes within parameter explanations could be slightly cleaner. Overall efficient.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description covers the main flow and source inclusion, and the ask-back behavior. However, it misses the domain parameter entirely, does not explain how shape/method interact or what happens if they are left empty (defaults), and does not describe the output structure beyond 'flow + source'. Given the complexity, it is serviceable but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It explains member, shape, method, with_source, and excerpt_chars with examples, but completely omits the 'domain' parameter that appears in the schema. It also gives examples only for member, shape, and method, not for excerpt_chars or with_source (though with_source is boolean and self-explanatory). This is incomplete but covers most parameters.

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 it produces a step-by-step design flow for a structural member ('부재의 설계 흐름을 단계별로 낸다') and includes the basis clauses. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly limiting its scope to flow and basis, not calculations or judgments. This is a specific verb+resource with clear 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?

It provides guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it clarifies that it only handles flow and basis, leaving calculations to the designer, implying other design tools do the heavy calculation. It also warns that if multiple trees exist, it asks back rather than choosing arbitrarily, which is a clear behavioral guideline. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when NOT to use it for other purposes.

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