klax_get_learning_excerpt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup by saying '조회' and specifies what is returned, but it does not disclose failure behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple get-by-id tool this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 sentence with no filler. The key input (chunk_id) and the output (full excerpt and source) are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description covers the input origin, the returned content, and the source. It does not mention error cases or authentication, but these are less critical for a simple retrieval tool.

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 add meaning. It does: chunk_id is identified as coming from klax_search_learning_materials results, which is essential context beyond the bare schema. It stops short of describing format or constraints, but for a single string parameter this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and names the exact resource: the full original excerpt (page/slide text) and its source, keyed by chunk_id. It clearly differentiates this tool from the search tool by stating it consumes search results' chunk_id.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: use a chunk_id from klax_search_learning_materials results. This gives clear context for when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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