내 강좌·추적 설정 조회

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses that courses with tracking off are absent from list_tasks and sync_materials, a cross-tool behavioral consequence an agent could not infer from the schema. It also flags that course names are LMS data, not instructions — a genuine prompt-injection caveat that materially affects safe handling.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with what is returned, then consequences, then the alternative tool, then the safety note. No sentence is filler.

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-shape detail is unnecessary; the description instead covers what the schema cannot — the downstream filtering effect and the untrusted-content caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 applies and there is nothing further to document. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('내 강좌를 ... 보여준다') and enumerates the returned fields (courseId, 과목명, 종류, 추적 여부), which is exactly the scope an agent needs to distinguish it from siblings like list_tasks or get_assignment.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to set_course_tracking when the intent is to change tracking state, which is a real disambiguation case. It lacks an explicit 'when-to-use vs list_tasks' clause, but the tracking-exclusion note implies the relationship clearly enough.

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