open_course_exam

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: no attempt is started, so this is a non-mutating inspection. It also implies prerequisites via 'selected enrolled course'. It does not say whether a course browser must already be attached, whether it navigates or just returns data, or what side effects (if any) opening the list has.

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; the disambiguating constraint is placed where the agent will read it first.

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. But with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is thin on preconditions (browser attachment, course selection) and on what 'observed exam list' contains, which an agent would want before invoking it.

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?

There is one parameter (course_name) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does imply the value must identify an enrolled, currently selected course, which is useful semantic constraint, but it gives no format, matching rules, or behavior when the name is ambiguous or not enrolled.

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 (open) and resource (the enrolled course's observed exam list), and the clause 'without starting an attempt' distinguishes it from the enter_selected_exam sibling. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 'without starting an attempt' gives a clear negative condition that tells the agent this is the browse-only path rather than the attempt-starting path. However, it never names the alternative tool (e.g., enter_selected_exam) or states prerequisites such as an attached browser session, leaving some routing to inference.

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