list_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: results are limited to previously synced materials, the agent should inspect source.stale for freshness, and an empty result is a signal to re-sync — a genuinely useful recovery path.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding, front-loading the resource and its filter facets before the operational hints. The only weakness is that 'source.stale 확인' is compressed to the point of ambiguity.

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 6-parameter list tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the core filters and the sync-recovery flow but omits pagination behavior and any hint about the shape of the returned list. Adequate, but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does map four of them (course→courseId, title→query, week→week, download status→downloadedOnly), but limit and offset are never explained, leaving pagination semantics entirely undocumented.

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 (조회) plus resource (동기화한 강의자료, synced course materials) and enumerates the filterable facets: course, title, week, download status. The word '동기화한' (synced) scopes the resource, but it never names the nearest sibling (search_materials) to tell the agent which of the two retrieval tools to pick.

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 an explicit when-to-use-this-instead rule: 'if the list is empty, call sync_materials', naming the alternative tool and the trigger condition. It also directs the agent to check source.stale first, which establishes a precondition, but offers no exclusion guidance for the many other search/list siblings.

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