klax_get_daily_briefing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the output is a markdown summary and that it is not official academic information, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs network calls, requires an active session, or how it handles missing data. The '참고용' caveat is a positive behavioral signal, but the description remains thin on operational behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core value proposition: what the briefing contains and its format. The second sentence adds an important caveat about non-official status. It is efficient, though it could have used the available space to explain parameters instead of leaving them undocumented.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably structured, and the description explains the content categories. However, with two undocumented parameters and no usage guidance, the description is not fully complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. The output schema may cover return structure, but parameter semantics remain a gap. For a composite briefing tool, the description should clarify what 'term' accepts and how 'include_attendance' changes the output.

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 description does not explain the two parameters: 'term' and 'include_attendance'. The description mentions attendance risk alerts, which loosely relates to 'include_attendance', but it does not clarify what 'term' means (e.g., academic term, date range, or semester) or how the boolean affects the output. With zero schema coverage and no parameter explanation, the agent cannot confidently set these parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it generates a daily academic briefing in markdown that combines today's/tomorrow's class schedule, classrooms, upcoming assignment deadlines with D-Day, and attendance risk alerts. It uses a specific verb ('생성합니다') and resource ('일일 학업 브리핑'), and the scope is distinct from sibling tools like klax_get_timetable or klax_get_deadlines, which are individual data fetchers rather than a composite briefing.

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 implies usage context: it is a summary/reference tool for daily academic information, and it explicitly notes it is not a substitute for official academic information. However, it does not state when to prefer this over alternatives like klax_get_timetable or klax_get_deadlines, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as authentication or session state. The '참고용 요약' caveat gives some guidance on expectations but not on tool selection.

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