교육과정 수록 범위·완전성 확인

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about 'still being collected separately,' indicating the report may reflect incomplete data. However, it does not clarify the report's format, limitations, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply, so it adds modest value.

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 sentence, but it packs substantial detail about the report's content. It is not overly verbose, though splitting into two sentences could improve readability. The core information is front-loaded before the verb, which is acceptable in Korean. Overall, it earns its length.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently conveys what the report covers. It mentions completeness of certain documents and scope of auxiliary materials, which is the core purpose. Without an output schema, some might expect a clearer description of the return format, but for a simple report tool, this is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema to elaborate. The description provides no parameter-related information, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 states the tool reports on the completeness of curriculum inclusion and scope of auxiliary materials, which is a clear purpose (a coverage report). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on listing, searching, or chunk retrieval. However, it lacks specificity about exactly which documents are covered and the nature of 'auxiliary materials,' so it's not a 5.

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 the tool is for checking coverage/completeness, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Given the existence of sibling tools (search, list), some inference is possible, but no direct guidance is provided.

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