상담 문서 초안

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions that the tool generates drafts and is supplementary, but does not disclose whether it modifies any data, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The word 'draft' hints at non-finality, but this is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise sentences that effectively communicate the core functionality and usage context. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and every word is meaningful with no 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?

Given the presence of 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, the relationship between inputs and outputs, or any prerequisites. Teachers are told to refine drafts, but agents lack guidance on expected 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 only 17% (only 'tone' has a description). The tool description does not explain the role of parameters like studentName, interests, scoreBand, or candidateUniversities. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no extra semantic guidance beyond what can be inferred from names.

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 generates drafts of college counseling comments, parent notices, and application reason statements based on collected information. It uses specific verbs ('generates') and resources ('drafts'), and distinguishes from sibling tools (which focus on exploration, matching, and search).

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 the tool is for teachers to create drafts that they later refine, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare, search_major). No direct comparison or exclusionary guidance is provided.

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