kcsc_grep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool processes entire documents (hence the 10-code limit), that keyword matching requires ALL space-separated words, that table text is included (since standards values are mostly in tables), and that formulas cannot be found. These are significant behavioral traits beyond the schema and are clearly stated.

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 being in Korean, the description is well-structured with a purpose line followed by clearly labeled parameter explanations. It is information-dense but not bloated; every sentence adds value, and the key limitations (10-code cap, formula unavailability) are front-loaded. The structure aids quick scanning and comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (whole-document scanning, multiple codes, specific matching rules, limitations) and zero annotation coverage, the description is remarkable complete. It covers all parameters, usage conditions, and limitations. While an output schema exists and likely describes the return shape, the description already equips an agent to call the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: code is explained as comma-separable with a 10-item cap, keyword is space-separated with AND logic, code_type is 'only when codes overlap', and limit is 'maximum number of clauses'. Each parameter's meaning and usage is defined, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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 precise purpose: find clauses in the standard '본문' (body) that contain a given keyword, and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling kcsc_search ('kcsc_search가 못 보는 곳을 본다'). This gives a clear verb, resource, and differentiator, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance by pointing to where kcsc_search fails, and adds practical constraints: multiple codes are allowed up to a maximum of 10 because it reads whole documents, and it notes the limitation of not searching formulas (which are images). This tells an agent when to prefer this tool and what to expect.

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