course_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Shows' implies a read, but it never states that the operation is non-mutating, what happens if course_dir does not exist, or whether it inspects the filesystem versus an in-memory project.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the outcome and lists the returned fields without waste. It is appropriately sized, though it could have spent one more clause on the required input.

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 description effectively enumerates what the call reports back, which substitutes for the missing output schema. However, with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, an agent still lacks enough to call it confidently with a valid course_dir.

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 parameter course_dir is not mentioned in the description at all. The agent gets no guidance on whether it is a path, a course ID, or a slug, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('보여 줍니다' / shows) and enumerates the concrete resource contents: lesson list, scene count, format issue count, audio status. That clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like course_build or course_init, though it never names a sibling to route against (e.g. lesson_get).

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 lesson_get, lesson_validate, or assets_list, and no preconditions (e.g. the course must already be initialized). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the enumerated outputs.

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