klax_get_timetable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses conditional ICS inclusion, file export side effect under the home directory, semester_start fallback to today, and the 16-week default. It does not cover term/verbose behavior or wider session requirements, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and parameter behavior grouped logically. Every sentence contributes and there is no redundant 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?

The ICS/export behavior and defaults are well covered, and an output schema exists for return values. However, with six optional parameters and no annotations, leaving term and verbose undefined creates a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to fill in arguments.

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 needed to explain all parameters. It adds real semantics and formats for generate_ics, export_ics_path, semester_start, and weeks, but term and verbose remain completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 first sentence states a specific action ('조회합니다' – retrieves) and target resource ('개인 수업시간표'), and enumerates the returned fields (subject, day, period, classroom, professor). No sibling tool targets timetable, so the resource is unambiguous.

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 clearly positions this as the tool for retrieving a personal class schedule and explains the ICS/export behavior relevant to calendar use. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion rules, but the usage context is clear.

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