get_lesson_list

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'entire list' but does not explain that start/end parameters allow subsetting, what the list items contain, or how language affects output. The term '전체 목록' also slightly conflicts with the ability to specify a range via the schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's core function. It is appropriately concise for a simple list-fetching operation with no unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return format and parameter behavior, but it only states that it fetches the entire list. It does not mention that start/end control the range, the meaning of '언어 코드', or that the response is a list of lesson titles. This is a notable gap for a tool with three configurable parameters.

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 have schema descriptions with defaults and ranges (start, end, language), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, maintaining the baseline score.

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 '「하느님의 교훈이 담긴 성경 이야기 (훈)」 전체 목록을 가져옵니다' which clearly identifies the resource and the action (fetching the full list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lesson_content, which fetches the actual lesson content. The specific publication name and verb '가져옵니다' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage guidance is provided; the description neither explains when to prefer this tool over get_lesson_content nor when a range parameter would be appropriate. It simply states what it does without any contextual instructions. This leaves the agent to infer the tool's positioning from its name alone.

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