read_my_writing

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already tell the agent this is a safe, closed-world read, so the description's burden is light. The word "본문" (body text) usefully signals that it returns content rather than metadata, but nothing is said about behavior on a nonexistent or wrong-owner id, and the return shape is left to the output 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the scope-defining word (본문, 한 편) is front and center. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so efficiency is not the issue.

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, full parameter coverage, and safety annotations already present, most of the agent's needs are covered by structured fields. The description nonetheless omits retrieval prerequisites (id must exist / come from listing) and any error expectation, leaving it just adequate for a simple read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including a thorough style explanation and the note that writing_id is the number from list_my_writings, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

"넣어 둔 글 한 편의 본문을 본다" names a concrete verb (본다/read) and a concrete resource scope (a single stored writing's body), which implicitly separates it from list_my_writings (listing) and check_draft (draft review). It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. The only hint that writing_id comes from list_my_writings lives in the schema, not the description, so routing guidance is absent from the text itself.

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