start_course_sniper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses self-healing (re-authentication, browser relaunch), terminal conditions (rejected credentials, page-structure errors, unreachable portal), and the macOS notification. This is exemplary transparency.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded overview, separate mode explanations, and behavioral details. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but acceptable.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, has output schema), the description is fairly complete for behavioral aspects but critically missing the definition of 'actions', which is the only required parameter. The output schema presumably covers return values, but the input gap reduces completeness.

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. It explains mode, open_time_iso, retry_interval_seconds, total_duration_seconds, watch_interval_seconds, and then_watch, but the required 'actions' parameter (an array of objects) is not described at all. This is a significant gap.

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 starts an automated course-grab job with two specific modes (open_time and watch_vacancy). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sniper_status (which likely only checks status) by describing the job execution behavior.

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 explains when to use each mode (open_time for timed submission, watch_vacancy for polling) and mentions constraints like minimum intervals. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent.

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