공지사항 목록

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the external board source, latest-first ordering, marker meanings (📌/🆕/📎), and the 'since last check' semantics of only_new. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentences front-load the core function, then efficiently pack marker semantics and the only_new flag behavior. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool with all parameters documented in the schema, the description is largely complete and even interprets output markers. It does not describe the exact return shape, but the marker legend and clear scope make the tool callable without further information.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for only_new by explaining it as announcements posted since the last check, which is richer than the schema's '새 글만'. Other parameters are adequately covered by 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 uses a specific verb ('보여 줍니다'), identifies the resource (강좌 공지사항 / 전북대 ubboard), states the ordering (최신순), and clearly implies this is the list counterpart to get_announcement_detail. An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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 provides clear context for listing announcements and explains the only_new filtering condition. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving routing to inference among many siblings like get_attention_inbox and get_daily_briefing.

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