AI-Collab-Memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('확인합니다' - check/verify) which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what format the statistics are returned in, or whether it's real-time vs cached data. For a status tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and scope. The first sentence states the main function, the second elaborates on what's included. No wasted words or redundant information. Could potentially be improved with more specific behavioral context, but within its current scope it's 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?

Given the tool has no parameters (simple complexity) and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, for a status/overview tool that presumably returns structured data about multiple resource types, the description should ideally specify what format the statistics are returned in or what specific metrics are included. The absence of annotations means the description should do more heavy lifting.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't incorrectly mention any parameters.

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's purpose: '확인합니다' (check/verify) and '보여줍니다' (show/display) with specific resources mentioned (work logs, research, checkpoint statistics). It distinguishes from siblings like get_work_log or search_research by covering multiple resource types in one view. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with each sibling tool.

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 context ('전체 현황' - overall status) suggesting this is for getting a comprehensive overview rather than specific queries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_work_log for individual work logs or search_research for filtered research. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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