klas_list_materials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful behavior context: the tool returns a list of posts and attachment IDs, not file contents. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any limitations about what is included in the results, so some behavioral gaps remain.

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, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. It front-loads the target resource and states the key output immediately, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand.

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?

Although output schema existsched, the description is too thin for a tool with no annotations and an unexplained optional parameter. It lacks any context about the expected authentication state, the meaning of yearhakgi, or how this tool relates to the sibling download tool, which is likely the next step after listing materials.

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, but it only clarifies the course dimension ('특정 과목') for course_id. The optional yearhakgi parameter is completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving a clear semantic gap for an agent trying to supply it correctly.

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 ('조회합니다' / retrieves), a clear resource ('특정 과목의 강의 자료실 게시글 목록'), and the key return element ('첨부파일 ID(atchFileId)'). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like klas_download_material, which would actually download the file, and klas_get_overview, which likely returns course overview information.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as klas_download_material or klas_get_overview. There is no mention of prerequisites, no 'when not to use', and no hint that the returned atchFileId can be used with the download tool.

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