LMS 과제 상세·첨부파일

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

It discloses the key side effect that annotations do not mention: attachments are downloaded into a dedicated folder, and local paths are returned. This explains why readOnlyHint=false appears on an otherwise read-oriented tool. It also states that the tool performs no submission and warns that LMS text is data, not instructions, which is valuable prompt-injection guidance.

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?

It consists of three dense, front-loaded sentences: what it returns, the no-submission boundary, and the injection warning. No sentence repeats the schema or the title, and the behavioral disclosures are prominent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still names the returned fields and the on-disk side effect. It is nearly complete; it only omits whether repeated calls re-download attachments or overwrite the dedicated folder.

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?

The schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage, and the description adds no detail about that parameter. In this situation, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, because the schema does the semantic work (cmid = mod/assign/view.php?id=...).

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?

It uses a specific verb (returns) and a precise resource (HanSung LMS assignment body/deadline/submission status), plus a secondary effect (downloads attachments and reports local paths). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_tasks', which only lists items, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 implicitly indicates it should be used for a single assignment (it takes a cmid), and it clearly says the tool does not submit, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of 'list_tasks', 'read_material', or 'sync_materials'. The note that the user must submit at submitUrl is a boundary, not usage routing.

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