dept_site

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the read-only nature and the special behavior of an empty menu (returns the site's menu list). It says nothing about what happens with an invalid dept, whether the target site may be unreachable, or any rate/permission constraints. Return shape is covered by the output schema, which lowers the bar.

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 core action and the menu enumeration are front-loaded, and the sibling routing note is placed last where it belongs. The long example list is dense but each item maps to a real menu value, so it earns its space; a slightly tighter phrasing would reach a 5.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is fetched, how to enumerate menus, and where notices belong. The only residual gap (valid dept values) is naturally supplied by the departments sibling.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does for 'menu': the enumerated menu names act as an implicit value vocabulary and the empty-string default behavior is explained. 'dept' is only implied by the tool's domain rather than defined (no guidance on accepted identifiers, presumably from the departments sibling).

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('학부·학과 홈페이지의 다른 메뉴 읽기') and enumerates concrete menu types (찾아오시는길, 교수소개, 교육과정, 학사일정, etc.), so the agent knows exactly what content it fetches. It explicitly routes notice-board content to the sibling dept_notices, but does not differentiate itself from other site-reading siblings such as site_page, site_menu, or departments.

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 states a concrete invocation rule ('menu를 비우면 그 사이트 메뉴 목록') and names the alternative for notices (dept_notices), which is clear contextual guidance. It stops short of exclusions for overlapping siblings like dept_contact (office location is listed here too) or site_page.

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