Get Grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the '[네트워크]' marker signaling a live network fetch, which is genuinely useful given cached siblings exist, and it scopes the return content beyond what the annotations say.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the tool action and its output scope are front-loaded, so an agent can parse it in a single pass.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values; it still summarizes the payload usefully. Only the missing sibling differentiation keeps it from fully closing the gap.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema (course_id filters courses, include_assignments toggles assignment detail), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema.

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 ('성적을 가져옵니다') and enumerates the returned content (course-level current/final scores plus per-assignment scores, submission status, grading time). It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like eclass_get_assignments or eclass_get_courses_cached.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The '[네트워크]' prefix hints it is a live call rather than a cached read, but the description never states this trade-off against eclass_get_courses_cached.

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