LMS 할 일 조회

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is to add behavioral context — and it does: scope derived from the tracking setting, default exclusion of 비교과, overdue items surfaced first when includePast is set, and an explicit data-vs-instruction warning about LMS text (prompt injection). It does not mention caching/rate behavior in prose, but the refresh parameter covers that in the schema.

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 tight sentences with the primary purpose and sort order front-loaded, followed by scope, chaining, and one edge-case flag. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema, and the safety note is a single clause rather than a paragraph.

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 no explanation; what remains — which courses are in scope, default filters, sort order, how cmid chains into sibling tools, and the injection caveat — is all covered. For a 6-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage, 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: includePast not only includes past-due items but places them first with overdue=true, and the course scope is defined by set_course_tracking rather than being free-form. Those are behaviors the schema text alone does not convey.

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 (조회), resource (VOD·과제·퀴즈 상태와 마감), and ordering (마감 임박 순) in one sentence, so the agent knows exactly what it returns and in what order. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_assignment and transcribe_vod as downstream consumers of the cmid values.

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?

Clear context for use: the target scope follows set_course_tracking (default excludes 비교과), and the follow-up path to get_assignment/transcribe_vod is spelled out via cmid. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or pointer to an alternative listing tool (e.g. list_courses), which keeps it below a 5.

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