학과 상세

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the type of information shown and the data source (CareerNet, University Alimi). However, it does not mention read-only nature, data freshness, authentication requirements, or potential response size. Basic transparency but could be more thorough.

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?

Description is a single sentence with a source attribution, perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a 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 simple detail tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the data source. It could be more complete by noting that data may not be real-time or any prerequisites, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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 already describes the single parameter 'majorName' with an example ('물리치료학과'). Description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool shows curriculum, career fields, related jobs, and employment rate for a specific department. It uses a specific verb ('shows') and resource ('one department'), and is distinct from sibling tools like search_major (searching/listings) and compare (comparison).

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?

Usage is implied: use when needing detailed information about a specific major. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor are alternatives like search_major or explore_job mentioned as alternatives.

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