저장 위치 확인

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds real context by disclosing the derived directory layout and the semester month boundaries (March–August vs. September–February), which the agent could not infer from annotations. It stops short of describing output shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the path pattern, then the alternative tool. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything the agent needs: what it returns, how the path is structured, how semesters map to months, and where to go to modify the setting. No gaps remain that would cause a misinvocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description instead spends its words on how the returned path is composed, which is the right use of space for a no-argument tool.

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 uses a specific verb-and-resource pairing (reports the storage location and this semester's folder) and enumerates the content types covered: lecture materials, assignment attachments, recordings. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling set_storage_dir, which the description itself names as the mutation counterpart.

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 final sentence explicitly routes the agent to set_storage_dir when the goal is to change the location, which is the only realistic competing action in this sibling group. The read-only nature of this tool versus the write nature of the alternative is therefore unambiguous.

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