첨부파일 조회

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

Description discloses that the tool returns only URLs, not files, and that most results are empty, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. 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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating what it does, when to use, and a behavioral note. Front-loaded with main action. No superfluous text.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. Annotations and schema complement well.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: the parameter 'bidNtceNo' is used to retrieve attachments from two sources and notes typical emptiness. This enhances understanding 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?

Description clearly states the verb '조회' (retrieve) and specific resources (e발주 attachments and 혁신장터 RFP attachments) with scope. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that other details are obtained via different 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?

Explicitly tells when to use (when file list or download URL is needed) and when not to use (for other details like base amount or eligibility, use other tools). Also notes that most notices have empty attachments, setting expectations.

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