kupid_lms_modules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It uses '조회' implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it's read-only, nor mention side effects, permissions, or error handling. More detail would improve 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 concise with two sentences plus parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the tool's function, describing what it retrieves, and providing usage guidance. 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and parameter meaning. It doesn't describe return values, but the output schema fills that gap. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 only parameter, course_id, is explained in the description as '과목 ID (kupid_lms_courses의 id 필드)', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by linking to another tool's output.

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 retrieves Canvas LMS modules (강의자료/모듈), specifying it includes weekly modules and materials. The verb '조회' (retrieve) and resource 'modules' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like kupid_lms_assignments, though it could explicitly mention it returns a list of modules.

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 explicitly instructs to first obtain course_id via kupid_lms_courses, providing a clear prerequisite and usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the prerequisite is sufficient for guidance.

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