tlc-portal-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Verb '조회' (query/retrieve) implies read-only behavior, but description lacks disclosure of return format, whether balances are per-user or aggregate, temporal scope of 'current', or pagination behavior. No mention of rate limits or caching.

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?

Single sentence of 5 words, front-loaded with no redundancy. Appropriate length for a simple read-only getter with no parameters. Every element 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?

Minimal but functional for low complexity. Missing output description (no output schema exists to compensate), doesn't clarify if balances are for authenticated user only or include breakdown by leave type. Adequate but clear gaps given lack of structured metadata.

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?

Zero parameters per input schema (empty object). With 0 params, baseline score is 4 as per rubric. Description correctly implies no filtering capabilities are needed for this operation.

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?

Description uses specific verb (조회하다/ retrieves) and resource (잔여 휴가/ remaining leave balance), clearly identifying this as a balance query operation. Implicitly distinguishes from sibling request-management tools (list_requests, cancel_request) by targeting 'balances' rather than 'requests', though explicit differentiation is absent.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., vs. list_requests for history), no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., authentication requirements implied by auth.* siblings but not stated), and no exclusion criteria.

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