과제 제출 안심 확인

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

The annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it does not change the LMS and is not an official receipt, which reinforces the safety profile and sets expectations.

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?

The description is concise, two sentences, and front-loads the primary purpose. It avoids unnecessary details.

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?

The description covers the key outputs (statuses, files, deadline risk, evidence) and limitations (not official receipt). Without an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, and the description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: re-reading the assignment detail screen to verify submission status, files, and deadline risk. It explicitly notes it does not modify the LMS and is not an official receipt, providing a clear scope.

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?

The description implies a confirmation use case but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like get_assignment_detail or specify when to prefer this tool. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives.

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