get_course_resources

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description usefully adds that results come from a link cache and that the tool will not submit assignments or mutate school records. The cache mention implies possible staleness, which is behavior beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the boundary condition. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the read-only nature is well covered. However, four parameters with zero documentation leave the calling contract underspecified for what is otherwise a simple lookup tool.

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% across four parameters (limit, query, offset, source), and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. With no enum hints and no per-parameter text, an agent must guess what 'source' accepts and how 'query' is matched.

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?

States a specific verb (查询/query) and concrete resources (课程资料, Moodle/ELC 活动链接缓存), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_courses, get_grades and get_exams. The scope is clear, though the phrase '活动链接缓存' is slightly opaque about what exactly is returned.

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 second sentence gives a negative boundary ('不会提交作业或修改学校记录'), which implies when-not usage, but it names no alternative sibling for when a different tool is needed. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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