활동 이수(완료) 현황

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: non-tracked activities are excluded and not assumed incomplete, only_incomplete defaults to true, and course state is reused without extra requests. Return shape is not described, but annotations carry the safety burden.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose, use case, default behavior, exclusion rule, and read-only note are all packed efficiently. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, use case, defaults, exclusions, and state reuse. The only gap is the lack of detail about the return value shape, but that is inferable and no output schema exists.

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 value by explaining the default behavior of only_incomplete and that false includes completed items, which the schema alone does not convey as clearly.

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 shows completion status for activities with completion tracking enabled in a course, using specific verbs and resource scope. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it falls just short of full differentiation credit.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: find unwatched online lectures and incomplete activities. It does not state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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