Retrieve Westlake University undergraduate curriculum details, including core courses, general education summaries, major courses, and major selection rules, in Chinese or English.
本科课程体系：核心课程、通识课程简表、专业课程与专业选定规则（招生网公开数据）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | 站点语言，默认 zh。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the data provenance (招生网公开数据), which is genuinely useful, but it never says that this is a read-only lookup, whether the data is cached or live, how current it is, or what the response looks like.
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?
One compact, front-loaded sentence enumerating the content categories with no filler. It loses a point only because it reads as a catalog blurb rather than an actionable instruction and carries no verb.
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?
The low-complexity surface (one optional enum parameter) means little explanation is required. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what the curriculum record contains or how to read it; listing content categories is only partial compensation.
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?
There is a single optional parameter (lang), with an enum and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it fully. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but does not exceed the baseline.
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 resource and enumerates its contents (核心课程、通识课程简表、专业课程、专业选定规则), so the scope is inferable. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it gives no signal for separating this from the sibling tools program_courses, program_plan, and program_majors, which plausibly cover the same subject matter.
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 offers no when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to any alternative. An agent cannot tell from this text whether program_curriculum is the entry point for curriculum structure, a supplement to program_courses, or a replacement for program_plan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.