내 도름스 앱 목록

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it clearly indicates a read operation ('목록을 가져온다') and describes the data returned (id, name, dorms count, comment count, last update). It does not mention auth, pagination, or ordering, but for a simple 0-param list tool the core behavior is transparent.

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 entire description is one dense sentence that front-loads the action and packs in scope, output schema, and sibling-tool relationships without any filler.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to know what the tool does and what will come back. It could add the exact response shape or ordering, but those are minor gaps given the 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?

There are no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add about input semantics. The description instead usefully specifies what each returned entry contains, which is the relevant semantic information for this tool.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('내가 올린 앱 목록을 가져온다') and clarifies scope (including co-published apps). It also states the returned fields and names sibling tools that consume the id, so an agent can distinguish this list tool from post_app_update and get_app_feedback.

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 when to use the tool by explaining that the returned id is the UUID used by post_app_update and get_app_feedback. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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