Retrieve the list of courses you are currently enrolled in to identify active classes and manage academic tasks.
현재 수강 중인 과목 목록을 조회한다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only operation ('조회한다') and scopes the result to currently enrolled courses)Skip... It does not mention authentication, pagination, or ordering, but those are less critical for a simple list tool and the output schema exists.
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, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and the resource precisely. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or promotional content.
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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what will be returned (currently enrolled courses) without needing additional explanation of return structure or parameters.
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 zero parametersasterisk, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The schema coverage is 100% by definition and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
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 and resource: '조회한다' (retrieves) and '현재 수강 중인 과목 목록' (currently enrolled course list). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_notices and list_assignments, which operate on different resources.
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 when the current enrolled courses are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context is reasonably clear but relies on inference from the tool name and sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.