klax_get_study_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses assignment placement rules, review-item distribution, and the handling of unparseable deadlines via unscheduled_assignments. It does not discuss side effects or auth, but the tool name and read-oriented nature mitigate that gap.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides key behavioral details. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, one optional parameter, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential planning logic and edge cases well. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented course_id parameter; otherwise the agent has enough context to invoke 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description never mentions the sole parameter course_id. An agent must infer its meaning from the name alone, with no guidance on optional behavior or what an empty default means.

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 ('생성합니다') and resource ('향후 7일 학습 계획') and clearly states it combines deadline assignments with forgetting-curve review queue items. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like klax_get_deadlines or klax_get_review_queue, since it merges both.

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 when this tool is useful: when a combined 7-day study plan is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as when the user only wants deadlines or only wants the review queue.

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