Chosun Course Syllabus

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 states 'Read,' indicating a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (maxPages), whether contact inclusion or raw data inclusion affects output, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but not contradictory.

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 efficiently states the tool's purpose. It is concise and easy to parse, but it could include a brief parameter overview without becoming verbose.

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 complexity of 12 parameters (8 required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how parameters relate to the syllabus report, or what to expect from optional flags like includeContact or includeViewData. The description is only slightly helpful for a simple read operation.

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 description adds no explanation for the 12 parameters, despite only 3 having descriptions in the schema (25% coverage). The required parameters (year, semester, collegeCode, etc.) are not elaborated, leaving the agent without meaning beyond their names. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads a course syllabus for a specific course offering, linking it to the sibling tool chosun_course_offerings. The verb 'Read' and resource 'course syllabus report' are specific, and the mention of the sibling differentiates it. However, it could further clarify that it retrieves the syllabus for a single offering identified by the required parameters.

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 the tool is used after obtaining a course offering from chosun_course_offerings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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