klax_get_lecture_progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only lookup ('조회합니다') and the data scope, but does not mention prerequisites such as authentication/session state, side effects, or data-source limitations. For a simple query tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 Korean sentence with no filler or repetition; it front-loads the scoping phrase '특정 과목'. It is concise, though its brevity also contributes to the missing parameter and alternative guidance.

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 output schema exists, covering return structure, and the core object of the query is clear. However, the tool does not explain optional parameters (yearhakgi, verbose) or distinguish itself from deadline/attendance siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to use this tool versus klax_get_deadlines or klax_get_attendance_status.

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 explain parameters. It only hints that course_id refers to a specific course ('특정 과목'); verbose and yearhakgi are left undefined in both the schema and description. This is partial compensation for a 3-parameter tool.

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 clear query verb ('조회합니다' / retrieves) and identifies the resource: a specific course's online video lecture progress rate and attendance deadline schedule. It does not, however, name or differentiate from closely related siblings such as klax_get_deadlines or klax_get_attendance_status.

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 phrase '특정 과목' gives an implied use case (when the user needs progress/deadline info for a particular course), but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions are given. Sibling tools like klax_get_deadlines overlap on the deadline portion, so clearer routing would help.

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