공지 본문

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description's 'shows' is consistent with those hints. It adds that attachments are part of the output, but it does not disclose behaviors like max_chars truncation effects or URL-versus-field precedence.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the tool's function, the second gives the input routing. The most important usage constraint is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only detail tool with no required schema parameters, the description covers the identifier alternatives (list-result fields or URL), and the schema covers max_chars. With no output schema, the description states the return scope (body plus attachment list), so the only notable gap is detailed response formatting.

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?

The schema already describes all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning by connecting board_cm_id and bwid to get_announcements results and by offering the URL as an alternative, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb ('보여 줍니다' / shows) and a clear resource: the announcement post body and attachment file list. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_announcements list tool by framing this as the detail view and naming the identifier inputs.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use board_cm_id and bwid from get_announcements results, or a post URL. This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not spell out exclusions versus other detail tools such as get_assignment_detail.

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