klax_get_deadlines

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

The verb '조회합니다' indicates a read-only operation, which is the core behavioral trait. However, with no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does not mention whether the operation requires authentication, whether it returns only future deadlines, or any other behavioral nuance.

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, information-dense sentence. It states the action, the resource, and the parameter scope with no wasted words.

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 is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, so the description covers the core invocation. However, it lacks any usage context, such as how to obtain a course_id, whether deadlines are filtered by date range, or what a typical response covers. These gaps are minor but noticeable.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the one parameter implicitly: '전체 과목 또는 특정 과목' maps to course_id being optional, where empty means all courses and populated means a specific course. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) and the resource: assignment and submission deadline schedules. It also specifies the scope: all courses or a specific course. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like klax_get_assignment_feedback, but the deadline-specific purpose is distinct enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only implies that it is for querying deadlines, relying entirely on the agent to infer applicability.

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