issue_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses environment variable usage and no parameters, but does not mention what happens on failure, whether the old token is invalidated, or what the response includes. For a state-changing auth operation, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes only essential information. No waste or redundancy.

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 very simple tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and invocation method. However, it lacks mention of return value or error behavior, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has zero parameters, and the description clearly states no parameters are needed while providing the exact environment variable names (TOSSINVEST_API_KEY, TOSSINVEST_SECRET_KEY) and their client_id/client_secret mapping. This adds meaningful invocation context beyond the empty schema.

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 states a specific action ('reissue access token') and the resource (token) using environment variables, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle market data or orders. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 description implies usage ('재발급' means reissue, so the token already exists) and explicitly states no parameters are needed, but it does not mention when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisite conditions such as token expiration. Context is clear but not explicit about exclusions or when-not-to-use.

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