klax_search_course_materials

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 local-only SQLite FTS indexing, no external API/embedding transmission, permission-aware scoping, and the format of returned results. It does not fully explain whether indexing happens as a side effect on each call, but it is substantially transparent.

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?

Two sentences are used efficiently: the first states the core operation and output, the second adds meaningful behavioral constraints. There is no filler, and the most identifying information is front-loaded.

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 description gives enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, scope, and local/permission-aware behavior. However, it leaves gaps around parameter semantics, whether indexing must be performed beforehand, and how it relates to sibling tools like klax_search_learning_materials or klax_index_learning_material.

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 only loosely hints at 'query' and 'course' without mapping them to parameter names. Most importantly, 'yearhakgi' is completely unexplained, and 'limit' receives no semantic guidance. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 action: searching locally indexed course syllabus weekly contents and material room post titles, then returning results with source info. It also differentiates from generic or cross-course search tools by explicitly noting permission-aware, course-scoped results that exclude other courses.

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 the tool should be used when searching course-specific materials locally and mentions constraints like no external APIs and no cross-course results. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, state when not to use it, or mention prerequisites such as prior indexing.

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