departments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a static, parameterless lookup with no side effects, but never states that it is read-only, whether the list is complete or paginated, or that no arguments are required. For a zero-argument listing tool the risk is low, so the gap is modest rather than severe.

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?

Two short clauses, zero filler: the resource is stated first and the sibling routing second. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail need not be described, and the absence of parameters removes input ambiguity. The only remaining gap is the lack of any statement about read-only behavior or list completeness, which matters slightly given there are no annotations.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param schema applies. The description correctly signals that no scoping input is expected.

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 names a specific resource: the list of colleges/schools under the 2025 reorganization plus their department/major homepages. It also points at the sibling tool that covers the adjacent domain (track_search). The verb is nominal ('목록'), so it is a clear resource description rather than an explicit action statement.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for major/track content by naming track_search as the alternative. It does not spell out a positive trigger condition beyond the implied 'when you need the college/department list', but the exclusion is enough to disambiguate.

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