글 마크다운 백업

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint true, but the description adds concrete details beyond that: overwriting existing files, per-post sequential fetching causing slowness, and the presence of front matter. This goes beyond the mere annotation flags and provides operational expectations.

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 packs purpose, rationale, overwrite warning, usage recommendation, and performance note into two tight sentences. There is zero fluff, and every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: purpose, overwriting, speed, and directory guidance. It doesn't describe return values or error handling, but those are less critical for an export tool with schema-covered parameters.

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 doesn't need to re-explain parameters. It only alludes to the local directory concept, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions for out_dir, limit, and username. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it saves a user's VELOG posts as markdown files with front matter to local storage, and explains it was created because VELOG lacks an official export. This specific verb-resource pairing (saving posts to local markdown) distinguishes it from all sibling tools like get_post or list_posts.

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 context (no official export) and gives practical usage warnings: it overwrites files and recommends a dedicated directory. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the unique export purpose makes the when-to-use reasonably clear.

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