놓치면 안 되는 것 확인

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

The description explicitly discloses side effects: it updates only the local comparison baseline and does not modify the LMS. This aligns with the annotations and gives the agent an accurate model of state changes.

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, front-loads the core value, and includes the most important behavior (top 3 actions and local-only update) without unnecessary detail.

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 gives enough context for successful use: what data is aggregated, what is prioritized, and what state changes occur. It does not specify the output shape, but no output schema is provided and it is not required for basic invocation.

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?

All three parameters are documented with reasonable descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is complete. The description itself does not add additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema already covers them.

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 purpose: it aggregates deadlines, announcements, assignment changes, new materials, and LMS change logs into a single student attention inbox, and prioritizes the top 3 actions. This is specific and effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_announcements or get_upcoming_deadlines.

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 title and description convey clear usage context: use this when a student needs a consolidated, prioritized view of things not to miss. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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