테마 그룹 조회

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the default ordering (등락률 상위), the stock_code filtering behavior, that limit is ignored during stock search, the absence of a theme-name parameter, and the theme/sector naming ambiguity. This goes well beyond a minimal read-only description.

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 dense but well-front-loaded with the core action and returned fields. It earns most of its length through important caveats, though there is slight redundancy: the 'default is top 등락률' idea appears twice. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the disambiguation burden.

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 2-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is highly complete. It explains what the tool returns, default behavior, parameter interactions, the missing theme-name lookup path, and how to choose between sibling tools. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly in most realistic scenarios.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning beyond the schema, such as 'if the theme you want is not in the default 30, raise limit to 100' and clarifies that stock_code searches themes containing that stock. Most parameter semantics come from the schema, with a small boost from the added usage guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: '키움 테마 그룹 목록을 조회합니다' and lists the returned fields. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools, especially get_sector_stocks (KRX sector classification) and get_theme_stocks (constituents), so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this when the user says '테마', use get_sector_stocks for 업종, and use get_theme_stocks for constituents of a specific theme. It also warns there is no theme-name filter and advises raising limit to 100 if the desired theme is not in the default top 30.

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