강좌 개요

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that cm_id values can be passed to other tools, which is useful behavioral context. It does not describe error handling or empty results, but the safety-related aspects are well covered by annotations.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the main content and the reusable cm_id without unnecessary detail. It is well structured and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 explains what the tool returns (weekly module list, notice board location, cm_id) despite lacking an output schema. It is sufficient for basic usage, though more detail about the response format might be helpful given 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?

The single parameter course_id is described as 'list_courses 의 강좌 ID', directly telling the user where to obtain the value. Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds practical source guidance.

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 that the tool shows the module list by week and the notice board location, using the specific verb '보여 줍니다' (shows). It also explains that cm_id values can be reused by other tools, which distinguishes its purpose from related tools like get_course_materials.

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 usage for retrieving the course structure and cm_id values, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_course_materials or get_assignments. The mention of cm_id reuse gives some guidance, but explicit alternative comparisons are absent.

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