Define interactive hotspots within course visuals. This function lists all image assets and provides the precise name and coordinates for each hotspot.
코스의 이미지와 각 이미지의 핫스폿 이름·좌표(0~1)를 보여 줍니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| course_dir | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned payload shape (image list with hotspot names and normalized coordinates), which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, pagination, or behavior when a course has no images.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it leaves obvious gaps that brevity does not excuse.
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?
The return content is reasonably covered for a tool with no output schema, but the required input parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and no annotations supply safety or prerequisite context. An agent can guess 'course_dir' from the name, but the definition stops short of being 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% and the single required parameter 'course_dir' has no title annotation or description. The description never mentions the parameter at all, so its meaning (a directory path? a course identifier?) is left entirely to inference.
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 names a specific resource and verb — it returns the course's images along with each image's hotspot name and coordinates. The '(0~1)' note further pins down that coordinates are normalized, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but the asset/hotspot domain is distinct from the audio, lesson, and build tools.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g. that the course must exist or be initialized), and no exclusion. The agent must infer usage purely from the one-line purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.