klax_get_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. It does convey that this is a read-only summary operation via '조회' and specifies the three data domains it aggregates, which is useful. However, it does not disclose prerequisites like authentication/session requirements, freshness of data, or how missing data is handled.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the data categories (courses, imminent assignments, unwatched lectures) and ends with the core action ('요약 조회'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

While an output schema exists and may cover return values, the description omits crucial operational context: parameter semantics, term format, and usage boundaries versus other tools. For a moderately complex tool with three optional parameters and zero annotation support, this leaves significant gaps in what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 contains no mention of any of the three parameters: term, verbose, or deadline_days. The agent is given no guidance on what term format to use, what verbose changes, or how deadline_days influences the result, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('요약 조회' - summarize/retrieve) and a concrete resource: the combined status of KLAS courses, urgent assignments, and unwatched online lectures. The word '종합' (comprehensive) and '한 번에' (at a glance) clearly distinguish this aggregate overview tool from sibling tools like klax_list_courses, klax_get_deadlines, and klax_get_lecture_progress.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when the user wants a single consolidated overview of courses, deadlines, and lecture progress. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools for more detailed or filtered views, such as klax_get_deadlines for specific deadline details.

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