kcsc_version

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

The description discloses a behavioral trait beyond annotations: that the tool fetches a fresh catalog ('카탈로그를 새로 받아 확인하므로'), implying it performs a network read each time—useful for agents deciding between cached vs. fresh data. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does reasonably well by noting this retrieval behavior and its implication for re-verification.

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 compact and well-organized: a purpose sentence, a bolded usage hint, parameter notes in a list-like format, and a rationale sentence. Each line earns its place—no fluff or repetition. The most important info (purpose and usage) is front-loaded, with parameter specifics following.

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 this is a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential points: purpose, parameter semantics, and usage rationale. The note about re-verifying decision-tree basis clauses adds domain context. However, it doesn't explain what the output looks like (the output schema presumably covers this) and assumes domain familiarity with '기준' and '카탈로그', which may be acceptable in a specialized context.

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%, meaning the property names 'code' and 'code_type' carry minimal semantic weight. The description does add some meaning: 'code' is clarified as a 기준 코드 that can take multiple comma-separated values, and 'code_type' is explained as needing specification only when codes overlap ('코드가 겹칠 때만 지정'). This compensates partially for the schema's sparse documentation, but it doesn't clarify the format of code_type or provide examples of valid values.

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: '확인한다' (check/confirm) the version and revision date of a standard ('기준'), and explicitly frames its purpose as checking revision status. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the version-checking role. The opening sentence is clear, but could be more specific about what '기준' entails without relying on the bolded hint.

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 states when to use this tool—when checking whether a standard has been revised ('개정 여부를 확인할 때 쓴다') and to judge whether decision-tree basis clauses need re-validation after receiving a new catalog. This is a clear use case, but it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings like kcsc_search or kcsc_read. The guidance is contextual but lacks exclusionary statements.

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