Get Assignment Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered for free. The description adds only the '[네트워크]' network-requirement tag and the returned-field list (which an output schema already carries), and says nothing about auth/permission needs or caching/freshness behavior. It adds light value over the annotations, not rich context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the field list and the usage note. The parenthetical enumeration of return fields is somewhat long but earns its place as a scan-able summary; no filler sentences.

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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, annotations cover the safety profile, and both parameters are schema-documented with 100% coverage. The only mild gap is the absence of explicit sibling routing, but for a simple two-param read tool the definition is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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% and both parameters (course_id, assignment_id) are documented in the schema, including a hint that assignment_id can be found via eclass_get_assignments. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('단일 과제의 상세 정보를 가져옵니다' – fetch detail for a single assignment) and enumerates the concrete fields returned (submission type, deadlines, points, allowed extensions, submission status, attempt count, score). The '단일' (single) scope implicitly distinguishes it from the bulk-list sibling eclass_get_assignments, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'과제 제출 전 확인용' gives a clear when-to-use context: check this before submitting, which positions it naturally ahead of eclass_submit_assignment. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but a competent agent can infer the workflow placement.

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