list_writing_kinds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds conceptual context about why kinds are tracked but says nothing extra behaviorally (e.g. that this is a fixed/derived list, or auth needs), which is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first, then the reason the kinds axis exists. Efficient, though the explanatory clause is more thematic than operational.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and with no parameters there is little else to specify. The description is adequate for a simple read-only enumerator, missing only the sibling tie-breaker against list_styles.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument listing 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it lists writing kinds (글 종류 목록) and clarifies the concept by naming concrete kinds (blog, announcement, email, paper). This implicitly separates 'kinds' from the sibling list_styles, though the distinction is never stated outright.

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 rationale ('same person's style differs per kind, so it learns separately') implies when kind-level granularity matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use instruction and no mention of the adjacent list_styles tool that an agent could easily confuse it with.

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