klas_list_courses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a non-mutating '조회' (query) operation and the returned fields, but does not disclose auth requirements, term format, error behavior, or any side effects.

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 with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, scope, and returned fields compactly, and the parenthetical adds term semantics without bloat.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description gives enough to select and invoke it. The remaining gaps—term format and auth prerequisites—prevent it from being fully 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by distinguishing '현재 학기' (current semester) from '지정 학기' (specified semester), effectively explaining the optional term parameter's empty/current vs. specified behavior. It stops short of defining the exact term 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 states a specific verb and resource: '현재 학기(또는 지정 학기)의 수강 과목 목록 ... 조회' (retrieves enrolled course list for current/specified semester), and lists returned fields (course name, code, instructor, section). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like klas_list_materials and klas_get_deadlines.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when a course list for the current or a specified semester is needed. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives such as klas_get_overview or klas_list_materials, so routing guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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