LMS 로그인

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

Discloses the crucial non-obvious behavior that the tool does not block waiting for login and instead returns instructions (including a XXX-XXX verification code) that must be relayed verbatim to the user. It also covers the already-logged-in short circuit and the keychain write, adding real value beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then modes, then the non-blocking return contract. No redundant restatement of the tool name or schema; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining what the tool returns (guidance text, verification code, or an already-logged-in notice) and how to handle it. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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. The description adds the condition the schema omits — that browser mode is intended for environments without the extension and is unsupported on WSL — which meaningfully helps the agent pick a value.

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 and resource ('한성대 LMS 세션을 받아 OS 키체인에 저장한다'), including the side effect of keychain storage. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling `logout` and from the LMS data tools like `list_courses`.

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?

Gives explicit selection criteria for the two modes: extension is the default, browser is for when the extension is absent or on WSL. It does not explicitly tell the agent when to invoke login at all (e.g., before calling other LMS tools), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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