KWCAG 체크리스트 생성

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a checklist and lists scopes, but does not describe output format, whether the operation has side effects, authentication needs, or any behavioral quirks. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no redundant or irrelevant material.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description alone must provide sufficient context. It explains the purpose but omits usage guidance, return value/format, and behavioral caveats. Given the presence of siblings and a required scope parameter, the definition is not fully complete for an agent to invoke it correctly without extra assumptions.

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 67%, so the baseline for this dimension is neutral. The description adds the scope categories (검사항목/컴포넌트/페이지/사용자 평가), which map to the scope enum, but it does not add meaning for the id or component parameters beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate but not compensatory.

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 ('만든다' - creates) and a specific resource ('KWCAG 2.2 체크리스트'), and enumerates the four scope types. This clearly distinguishes get_checklist from siblings like check_contrast, check_html, audit_url, and lookup_checkpoint, which are inspection/lookup tools rather than generation tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of sibling tools. The scope list hints at use cases, but the description does not state e.g. 'use when you need to create a checklist by scope' or 'use lookup_checkpoint for individual checkpoint details.'

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