PSST 섹션 초안 작성

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it structures facts into a draft, marks missing facts as '[입력 필요]', does not fabricate information, and returns a zero-point answer warning. It also specifies the output format. This goes beyond basic functionality, though it does not mention authorization or side effects.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the main action and outputs. It front-loads the core purpose and is not overly verbose. However, the sentence is somewhat dense; a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability without losing conciseness.

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 (2 parameters, one with enum, nested object inputs) and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains inputs, processing rules (no fabrication, marking missing inputs), and outputs (summary, structured body, warning, diagrams). No critical information is omitted.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds meaning: it explains the 'section' enum values explicitly and describes 'inputs' as key-value pairs with concrete examples (e.g., {문제:'...', 시장현황:'...'}). It also clarifies how missing inputs are handled ('[입력 필요]'), which adds value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: creating a draft for a PSST section based on founder-provided facts. It specifies the four section keys (P, S1, S2, T) and their meanings, and lists the return outputs (summary, structured body, zero-point warning, recommended diagrams). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_outline or market_research.

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 implies the tool is used when a founder provides facts and needs a structured draft. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance or list prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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