두 법령 파일 비교

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds that it uses git diff and requires files in the same folder, which is useful context. However, it does not describe the output format, edge cases, or any side effects beyond the annotation.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core operation (git diff) and the key constraint (same law folder). It contains no redundant information, and the README reference is a minor but acceptable addition. It is highly concise and well-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 diff tool with fully documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the description is largely complete. It states what it does and the folder constraint, and references the README for examples. Since there is no output schema, a direct statement about the return value would improve completeness, but the action and constraints are sufficiently clear for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema fully describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including enums for fileA and fileB and lawDir's meaning. The description adds that files are Markdown and in the same folder, but this is already inferable from the schema enum values and lawDir description. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool runs git diff on two Markdown files within the same law folder, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kr_read_file (single file reading) and kr_git_log (history) by focusing on comparing two files. The title "두 법령 파일 비교" reinforces this purpose.

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: when you need to compare two files in the same law folder. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as when reading a single file would suffice. The context is clear but lacking explicit exclusions or contrasts with sibling tools.

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