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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description confirms creation and return value but adds no additional behavioral details such as idempotency, error conditions, or permission requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loading the action and output, with no extraneous text. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and usage context adequately for a simple creation tool. It could mention uniqueness constraints or failure cases but is still fairly complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 creates a new series and returns a UUID, specifying the action and result. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'velog_list_series' which lists series, and explicitly ties the output to publishing use.

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 includes guidance to use the returned UUID as 'series_id' when publishing, indicating a typical workflow context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context that the action is irreversible and requires explicit confirmation, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the action and one for the warning. No redundant words, every sentence adds value.

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 simple destructive tool with output schema present, the description covers the core action, irreversibility, and required confirmation. It lacks mention of error cases or side effects, but these are minor gaps.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds emphasis on the confirm=True requirement, but does not provide new semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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 explicitly states '글을 삭제합니다' (deletes a post), clearly identifying the verb and resource. Among sibling tools which include create, update, list, get, etc., this uniquely identifies the delete action.

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 clearly states when to use (to delete) and a critical prerequisite ('confirm=True') due to irreversibility. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only adds that the markdown body is included. This provides some extra context but does not disclose other behaviors like response size or pagination. No contradiction.

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 very short and to the point, with no wasted words. It could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., mentioning return type), but it is not overly verbose.

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?

With an output schema available, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not mention the optional username parameter's default behavior or the exact format of url_slug, but these are covered in the schema. Mostly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%; both parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so 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 the verb (fetches) and resource (post by url_slug), and mentions it includes markdown body, distinguishing it from sibling tools like velog_list_posts which lists posts without body.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage when a single post by url_slug is needed, but does not contrast with velog_list_posts or mention exclusion criteria.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds that results are in newest-first order, username defaulting behavior, and authentication requirement for drafts_only. This is valuable behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action and ordering; the second adds key usage details. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 list tool with 5 parameters, an output schema, and good annotations, the description covers essential points: purpose, ordering, default username, drafts authentication. No critical gaps identified.

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 input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra meaning: username default uses an environment variable, and drafts_only requires authentication. These details enhance understanding 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 it fetches a list of Velog posts in newest order. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., velog_get_post for single post, velog_list_series for series) by focusing on '글 목록' and using the verb '가져옵니다'.

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 specific usage context: username defaults to VELOG_USERNAME if omitted, and drafts_only requires authentication. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the distinct purpose makes it clear when to select this tool.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds value by clarifying the output (UUIDs) and their practical use (series_id in publishing). It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 consists of two short, direct sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains its use case. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) which presumably describes the return structure, so the description does not need to detail output format. However, it could be more complete by clarifying behavior when username is omitted (e.g., defaults to authenticated user) or if authentication is required. The optional parameter and read-only annotation suggest public access, but this is not confirmed.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'username', which is fully described as '벨로그 계정명(@ 제외)' (account name without @). The description does not add additional parameter-level details, but the schema already provides sufficient information. 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 that it retrieves a list of series and their UUIDs, and explains that the UUID is used as series_id when publishing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like velog_create_series (creates series) or velog_publish_post (publishes posts). The verb '가져옵니다' (gets) and the resource '시리즈 목록' (series list) are specific.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: to get series UUIDs for use as series_id when publishing. It implies it should be used before publishing or updating posts that belong to a series. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like velog_create_series, though the context makes it clear.

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

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

The description discloses that the tool requires user interaction in the browser, that it saves a profile for future use, and that headless=True enables windowless renewal. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true).

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 three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose statement, usage trigger, and login flow explanation. No unnecessary words, well-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 login tool, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, and behavioral details. It does not mention error handling for login failures, but the timeout parameter addresses waiting. Overall, it is fairly complete given the output schema exists.

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 each parameter is already described. The description adds value by integrating the parameters into a workflow: explaining when headless should be false (first login) and when it can be true (renewal). This provides semantic context beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool opens a Velog login window to obtain and save a token. It distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools by specifying it handles authentication for write tools.

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 explicitly says to call this tool when write tools give authentication errors. It also distinguishes between first login (headless=False) and subsequent renewals (headless=True), providing clear usage guidance.

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

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

The description discloses that it writes 'velog_post_id' to the file after publishing (side effect) and that repeated calls update rather than create. These behavioral traits go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true). No contradictions.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core action; the second explains idempotent behavior on repeated calls.

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?

Covers core workflow, idempotent behavior, and file recording. Missing details like error handling or prerequisites, but includes output schema (not shown) to handle return values. Adequate for the complexity.

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% with descriptions that already explain parameter override behavior. The description adds overall context about reading frontmatter (title, tags, slug, series_id) and how parameters interact, providing 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 verb 'publishes local markdown file to Velog' and specifies the resource (markdown file). It differentiates from siblings like velog_publish_post by mentioning file I/O and frontmatter handling.

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 explicitly states that calling the same file again updates the existing post, providing clear guidance for repeated use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools for when to use this vs. alternative publish methods.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) already indicate mutation. The description adds that body is markdown and draft behavior, but does not disclose other side effects or prerequisites (e.g., authentication).

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits mention of the required 'title' parameter, which is fundamental. With 8 parameters, more overview would improve completeness.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds value by specifying that body is markdown and explaining the semantic consequence of draft=True, which goes beyond the schema description.

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 '새 글을 발행합니다' (publish a new post), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like velog_update_post (update) and velog_delete_post (delete).

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 a clear context for using the draft mode ('draft=True 면 임시저장으로만 올라가고 공개되지 않으니, 확인이 필요할 때 사용하세요'). However, no explicit comparison to alternatives like velog_publish_markdown_file.

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

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

The description explains the critical behavioral nuance that body must be sent in full even for partial edits, which is beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true). This adds significant transparency for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every word earns its place. No redundant or missing information.

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 9 parameters, write operation, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary behavioral aspects: required field, partial update semantics, and the body caveat. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description summarizes the partial update pattern but does not add new per-parameter details. The warning about body being full is already implicit in the schema description.

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 updates an existing post, specifies the required parameter (post_id), and explains partial update behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like velog_publish_post (create) and velog_delete_post (delete).

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 tells the agent that only passed fields change and body must be sent in full. It implicitly guides when to use this tool (when an existing post ID is available), but could explicitly mention alternatives like velog_publish_post for new posts.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it uses the current token to check the account, which aligns with annotations but doesn't provide significant new behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and usage. Every word serves a purpose; there is no waste.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown but noted) and zero parameters, the description fully explains the tool's purpose and context. It is complete for a straightforward authentication check tool.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema provides all necessary information trivially. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool does (checking account with token), which compensates for the lack of parameter details. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4.

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 checks the Velog account associated with the current token. It uses a specific verb (확인합니다) and resource (벨로그 계정), and the sibling tools (e.g., velog_login, velog_list_posts) indicate this is distinct for authentication verification.

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 specifies it is for '인증 점검용' (authentication check) before publishing, providing a clear use case. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but for a simple auth check tool this is sufficient.

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