kupid_lms_quizzes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('조회') but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. It adds basic behavioral context (listing quizzes) but lacks detail on side effects or permissions.

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 no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, follows with the prerequisite, and then defines the parameter. At only three short sentences, every sentence adds value.

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 required parameter, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to use it. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or behavior when no quizzes exist, but the output schema likely fills that gap.

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%, so the description compensates. It explains that 'course_id' is the ID from 'kupid_lms_courses', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type. However, it could mention other possible parameters (none) or format constraints.

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 that the tool lists quizzes, exams, and surveys with due dates and time limits for a course. It uses specific verbs ('조회합니다' meaning retrieves) and resource ('퀴즈/시험 목록'). Although not explicitly distinguishing from siblings, the context of sibling tools (assignments, grades, etc.) makes its purpose distinct.

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 the course_id from 'kupid_lms_courses', providing a clear prerequisite. It does not specify when not to use the tool or alternatives, but for a simple list tool, this guidance is adequate.

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