Assess a student's understanding of a concept and guide them using Socratic hint levels (1-3). Provide concept, user answer, and context for adaptive hints.
소크라테스식 점진적 힌트 사다리(Hint Ladder, 1~3단계)를 통해 학생의 개념 이해도를 점검하고 유도합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| concept | Yes | ||
| hint_level | No | ||
| user_answer | No | ||
| context_text | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the hint ladder levels (1-3) but does not disclose what the tool actually does with user_answer, context_text, or what the output looks like. It is unclear whether this is interactive, what the response structure is, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tutoring 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and method without any filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and any behavioral detail. An agent would not know how to set hint_level, user_answer, or context_text, or what the response will be. The output schema exists but its content is not described, so the description must compensate and fails to do so.
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 explain the parameters. It only references 'concept' implicitly through the hint ladder and does not explain hint_level, user_answer, or context_text at all. The agent has no guidance on how to fill these parameters beyond their names.
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+resource: 'checks and induces student's conceptual understanding' via a 'Socratic progressive hint ladder (levels 1-3)'. It is clear about the tool's core function and method. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like quiz generation or submission, but the purpose is distinct enough for an agent to infer its role.
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: when you want to check conceptual understanding through hints. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as klax_generate_quiz or klax_submit_quiz_answer, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.