klax_list_courses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a read operation (조회) and lists the output fields, but it doesn't disclose whether the term parameter is required, what happens if no term is specified, whether the data is cached, or any authentication requirements. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the output fields. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a brief note about the term format or verbose parameter.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. However, with 0% schema description coverage, two parameters (term and verbose) are only partially explained, and there's no guidance on term format or verbose behavior. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 the undocumented parameters. The description mentions '지정 학기' (specified term), which maps to the 'term' parameter, but it doesn't explain the expected format (e.g., '2024-1' vs '2024년 1학기') or what the 'verbose' boolean controls. The description adds some meaning for 'term' but leaves 'verbose' completely unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it retrieves a list of courses for the current (or specified) term, including course name, code, instructor, and section. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like klax_get_timetable or klax_get_syllabus, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 usage context by mentioning 'current term (or specified term)' and the optional term parameter, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like klax_get_timetable or klax_get_syllabus. There's no exclusion guidance or comparison to siblings.

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