klax_get_syllabus

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It honestly frames the operation as a read/query and discloses what content the syllabus includes, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose auth/session requirements, behavior for invalid course_ids, or what 'verbose' mode changes, leaving notable gaps for a read tool.

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 Korean sentence that is front-loaded with the action and packs useful content detail (weekly plan, textbooks, evaluation ratios) without waste. It earns its length, though a parenthetical note on the two unexplained parameters could have been added without bloating the definition.

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 tool with three parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the one-sentence description leaves too much undisclosed: yearhakgi semantics, verbose behavior, and the empty-default meaning are all absent. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the input-side gaps and lack of usage guidance make this incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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 compensate for all three parameters. It only implicitly covers course_id via '특정 과목', while yearhakgi (year/semester, Korean terminology) and verbose are completely unexplained, including what an empty yearhakgi default means (e.g., current semester). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb ('조회합니다' / retrieves) with a clear resource ('강의계획서' / syllabus) and enumerates the content scope (weekly schedule, textbooks, evaluation ratios). It does not explicitly name a sibling it is distinct from, but the level of content detail lets an agent tell it apart from vaguely similar tools like klax_get_overview or klax_get_study_plan.

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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this tool is for fetching detailed syllabus information when a course_id is known. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives among the 30 siblings, and no stated distinction from other course-information tools.

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