inspect_course

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Inspect' implies a read, but the description never confirms read-only behavior, does not say whether an attached course browser session is required (several siblings such as attach_course_browser/start_course_browser suggest it might be), and says nothing about side effects, latency, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the key qualifier ('enrolled', 'user-selected') placed early. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a large, confusingly similar sibling set, the description does too little. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but prerequisites (enrolled course, account selection, browser attachment) and the relationship to the score/exam page inspectors are missing.

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% for both parameters. The description only loosely maps to course_url ('user-selected enrolled course URL') and gives no explanation at all for account_id — which account identifier format, and whether it must be claimed/active, is left entirely undocumented.

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 (inspect), resource (a course URL), and the output it is looking for (task and deadline hints). This differentiates it reasonably from siblings like inspect_course_score_page and inspect_exam_page, which target other page types, though the description never names those alternatives directly.

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 phrase 'user-selected enrolled course URL' hints at a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing advice among the many sibling inspect_* tools. An agent must guess whether to call this, list_courses, or inspect_course_score_page first.

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