Geervanee's live course catalogue — title, level, live/self-paced, teacher, duration, price, and (for live courses) real upcoming batch schedule. Pulled live from the same feed courses.php shows visitors, not a static list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | 'live' (interactive classes) or 'video' (self-paced). Omit for both. | |
| level | No | fundamentals, intermediate, or advanced. Omit for all levels. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is live and not static, which is a key behavioral trait. It also mentions the inclusion of real upcoming batch schedules for live courses, adding context beyond the schema. However, it does not describe potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the feed is unavailable, but given the simplicity, this is adequate.
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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the key information. It includes the essential details without any fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains the data source, the fields returned, and the optional filters. It could mention the return format, but since there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds context by explaining the meaning of 'live' and 'video' types and the levels, but it does not go beyond the schema. Since the schema already covers the parameters, a baseline 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists Geervanee's live course catalogue with specific fields (title, level, live/self-paced, teacher, duration, price, batch schedule) and distinguishes it from a static list by noting it is pulled live from the same feed as the website. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and it differentiates from sibling tools like list_articles and list_games.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool (to get course information) and mentions the optional filters (type and level) in the schema, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide, and the sibling tools are distinct in purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: about provides an overview, list_* iterates over separate content types (articles, courses, games), read_article retrieves a full article, and subscribe handles email notifications. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a uniform lower_snake_case pattern, with clear verb prefixes ('list_', 'read_', 'subscribe', 'about_'). The naming is intuitive and consistent across the set.
Six tools is a well-scoped number for a content-oriented server. Each tool covers a necessary action (overview, list each category, read an article, subscribe) without excess or redundancy.
The main workflows (browsing articles, courses, games; reading an article; subscribing) are covered. However, there is no way to retrieve details for a specific course or game beyond the list responses, and no search functionality, which could be minor gaps in a content discovery context.