과제 상세·요구사항 분석

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it performs AI estimation of requirements and submission clues, and it explicitly marks estimated content separately. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not mention estimation reliability or failure behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the output categories and adds the AI-estimation caveat with no filler. Every clause contributes a distinct piece of information, and the parenthetical about marking estimates is placed at the end without cluttering the main purpose.

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 read-only detail tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned content well: original text, deadlines, submission status, attachments, submitted files, and AI-estimated requirements. The schema covers parameter meanings. It does not specify behavior when both url and cm_id are supplied or when the assignment cannot be found, but those are minor for this complexity.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema: url has format uri and the expected /mod/assign/view.php?id= shape, and cm_id is described as the module ID from the URL. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the tool description adds no parameter-level detail.

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 action ('보여 주고' / show) and a precise resource: assignment detail, including original description, deadlines, submission status, attachments, and submitted files. The '상세·요구사항 분석' framing clearly distinguishes this from list-level siblings like get_assignments and from status-only check_assignment_submission.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named. The intended use is implied by the title and by the rich output list, but the description does not tell an agent to prefer this over check_assignment_submission for a quick status check or to call get_assignments first.

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