자료 상세 조회

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is included (achievement standards, curriculum comparison), but does not disclose read-only nature, performance implications, required permissions, or return format. The description lacks important behavioral context for a detail retrieval 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 extremely concise at two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action ('조회합니다') and efficiently adds key details about included content.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of what is included (achievement standards, curriculum comparison). However, it does not describe return structure, pagination, or error handling, leaving some gaps given the lack of output schema.

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 for the single parameter 'id' is 100%, with a clear description. The tool description reinforces the parameter's role but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 tool retrieves detailed information by resource id, and specifies it includes the full content of linked achievement standards and comparisons with the 2022 revised curriculum DB. The verb '조회합니다' and resource '자료 상세' are specific, and the tool is well differentiated from sibling tools like search_resources which returns a list.

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 versus alternatives. While sibling tools are listed, the description does not state prerequisites (e.g., needing an id from search_resources) or when not to use this tool. Usage context is only implied.

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