kcsc_outline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful parameter-level behavior (three accepted code formats, the overlap handling for code_type, depth semantics where 3 reaches '4.2.1' and 0/negative means all). But tool-level behavior — such as whether traversal is bounded, pagination, or the shape of the returned hierarchy — is left unstated, though the output schema exists to carry return details.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent parameter line is terse and information-dense. Every sentence earns its place — there is no filler, duplication, or boilerplate. The format is easily scannable for an agent.

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 3-parameter tool with one required param and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage intent, and all parameter semantics thoroughly. Since an output schema exists, the missing return-value prose does not count against it. The only gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, which is a minor omission given the clear purpose statement.

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, and it does: every parameter gets value-level semantics. `code` documents three accepted input formats; `code_type` explains the 6-digit collision scenario and the KDS/KCS disambiguation; `depth` gives concrete behavior for values 3, 0, and negative. This greatly exceeds the bare schema and leaves nothing about the parameters to ambiguity.

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: '기준의 목차(조항번호 계층)를 낸다' (outputs the table of contents / provision-number hierarchy of a standard) plus the intended use ('choosing which clause to read'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like kcsc_read (reads content) and kcsc_search (searches). A slightly more explicit statement of the returned artifact (a hierarchical tree) would push it to 5.

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 gives a usage context — '어느 절을 읽을지 고르는 데 쓴다' (use it to pick which clause to read) — which implicitly signals it is a navigation/pre-read step before kcsc_read. However, it never names alternatives (kcsc_read, kcsc_search, kcsc_grep) or states when NOT to use it, so routing relies on inference rather than explicit exclusions.

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