Analyzes your Baekjoon submission to suggest code improvements in style, readability, and efficiency.
백준 문제 ID와 사용자 코드를 받아, 코드 스타일, 가독성, 효율성을 분석하고 개선된 리팩토링 코드를 제안합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userCode | Yes | 사용자가 작성한 코드 | |
| problemId | Yes | 백준 문제 번호 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the analysis dimensions (style, readability, efficiency) and the deliverable (refactored code), which is useful context, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or the shape of the returned suggestion.
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 efficient sentence with inputs front-loaded followed by the action and output. Nothing extraneous, though it is terse rather than richly structured.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers inputs and intent but omits any hint of the response format or failure behavior.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates that problemId and userCode are inputs but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.
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 pair: takes a Baekjoon problem ID and user code, then analyzes style, readability, and efficiency and proposes refactored code. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings hint/answer/testcase, though the description never names or contrasts them.
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 versus hint, answer, or testcase. The agent must infer that 'refactor' is for code-improvement requests, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.