open_course_chapter

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether opening is read-only or stateful, whether it affects browser/UI state, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure.

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 a single economical sentence with no wasted words, and the key constraint is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in routing and parameter semantics.

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 a large sibling toolset and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits how this differs from related chapter and browser tools, what output is expected despite an output schema existing, and enough context to invoke it confidently in the learning workflow.

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 but does not. It implies chapter_id refers to a chapter node in the owned course directory, but it does not explain the identifier format, where to obtain it, or any constraints beyond that it must be present in the owned course directory.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Open' and 'chapter node present in the owned course directory.' This is clear enough to know it opens a chapter, though it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as open_chapter_quiz or find_chapter_links.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool rather than alternatives like open_chapter_quiz, find_chapter_links, or goto_course_page. The phrase 'exactly one chapter node' is a constraint, not usage guidance, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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