list_announcements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and expanding the resource to 'notices, and updates' adds a little behavioral context. However, it does not mention authentication needs, pagination behavior, default state filtering, or what the response contains, so transparency is only partially addressed.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and scope with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the inclusion of 'notices, and updates' adds clarity without bloat.

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?

For a simple four-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus schema covers the basics needed for a correct call: what the tool returns in general and that courseId is required. It omits return-value shape and sibling selection guidance, but the tool is straightforward enough that these gaps are not critical. A midpoint score reflects the adequate but unremarkable 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 100%, with all four parameters individually documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the existing schema and only broadly signals course scoping via 'for a course'. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'stream announcements, notices, and updates' for a course, which is clear and distinct from most siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related list tools such as list_coursework_materials or list_coursework, so it misses the top score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states that it lists announcements for a course, leaving the choice of tool entirely to inference. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons are mentioned.

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