klas_get_deadlines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '조회합니다' implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not state auth/session requirements, whether data is cached or live, or what happens when course_id is omitted beyond the all-courses implication.

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, front-loaded Korean sentence states the operation, resource, and scope with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter query tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the definition does not need to describe return values. It covers the main query scope, but lacks context about when to prefer this over sibling tools and whether session/auth preparation is required, which is relevant given klas_refresh_session and klas_auth_status exist.

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 schema only exposes course_id with an empty default and 0% description coverage, so this dimension relies on the tool description. The phrase '전체 과목 또는 특정 과목' conveys the key optionality of the parameter, but it stops short of explicitly mapping course_id to 'specific course' or describing the expected ID format.

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 verb ('조회' / retrieve) and resource ('과제 및 제출 마감 일정' / assignment and submission deadline schedules), and clarifies the scope (all courses or a specific course). It is distinguishable from siblings like klas_list_materials or klas_get_lecture_progress, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this instead of klas_get_overview, klas_get_lecture_progress, or another sibling. The only usage signal is the implicit 'all or a specific course' scope in the description.

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