성장 로드맵 생성 (4축 타임라인·자금 징검다리·시장변화)

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that sales figures are not filled arbitrarily and must be provided by the entrepreneur. It also mentions integration with a knowledge base for funding bridges. However, it does not describe side effects, authorization needs, or the exact output format beyond SVG, limiting transparency.

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, containing all necessary information in a single paragraph without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor improvement could be structure with bullet points, but it remains 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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers key output elements (market change descriptions, SVG diagram) and behavioral constraints (no arbitrary sales figures). It is adequate for a complex tool, though some details like pagination or error handling are missing.

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 description adds value by explaining the purpose of key parameters: '과거준비' as proof of capability, '미래계획' requiring causal chains, and '자금계획' as funding bridges. This context goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, enhancing semantic understanding.

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 explicitly states that the tool generates a roadmap connecting milestones across four axes (Item, Funding, Marketing, Operations) as causal chains, not just timelines. It also specifies inclusions like funding bridges, market change descriptions, and an SVG diagram, clearly distinguishing this from generic planning tools among its siblings.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assemble_plan or plan_outline. No context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases is given, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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