klax_list_materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the merging behavior and return of atchFileId, which is useful. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor mention pagination, limits, or any side effects. For a query tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key output (atchFileId). No redundant or verbose phrasing; it efficiently communicates the essential behavior.

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?

With no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly call the tool. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context (e.g., what yearhakgi means, whether verbose is needed), and any mention of response structure beyond atchFileId. An output schema exists but is not visible, so the description should compensate more.

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 provides no explanation of any parameter (course_id, yearhakgi, verbose). It mentions 'specific course' but does not explicitly map it to course_id or explain the other parameters. This is a major gap given zero schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('조회' - retrieve) and a clear resource: a merged list of lecture materials from two sources (bulletin board posts and online content attachments) with attachment file IDs. This clearly distinguishes it from generic list tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate.

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?

It implies usage for a specific course ('특정 과목의') and describes what it returns, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like klax_search_course_materials or klax_list_learning_materials. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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