Export Course Snapshot

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

Annotations mark this as destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description explains the mechanism: writing to output_path refuses to overwrite an existing file unless overwrite=true. It also flags the [네트워크] network dependency. It does not explain readOnlyHint=false or other side effects, but the key destructive behavior is disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the scope and output formats front-loaded, then the alternative-usage hint, then the file-saving caveat. No filler, though the parenthetical enumeration is dense.

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-format details are not needed. Combined with the annotations, the description covers scope, alternatives, and file-write behavior adequately for a 5-parameter export tool; only the exact structure of the snapshot contents is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema (format enum, overwrite default false, output_path optional, include_grades default false). The description only restates the overwrite-refusal semantics already present in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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 (내보냅니다/export) and resource (한 강의의 현재 상태) with an explicit enumeration of what is included (course info, assignments, announcements, materials, download status, optional grades). The scope 'one course, all at once' clearly distinguishes it from the many single-resource siblings like eclass_get_assignments or eclass_get_announcements.

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 says to use this single call instead of repeated individual queries when surveying a whole course, which is real routing guidance. It does not name specific sibling tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when only one resource is needed), so it falls short of a full 5.

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