list_courses

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the scope (courses where the user is a student or teacher), implying read-only behavior, but does not mention return format, pagination, side effects, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal and leaves many behavioral aspects unknown.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded and the scope is clear. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It explains the tool's purpose and scope but does not specify what the response looks like (e.g., array of Course objects) or any default behavior (like default page size). The agent may need to infer return structure, which is a gap for full 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, such as defaults or relationships. It does not compensate for the schema's completeness, but the schema already documents each parameter well.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List courses where the user is a student or teacher'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_course (singular) and list_coursework (different resource) by its focus on courses and the user's role. The examples 'active or archived' add context without confusion.

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 implies usage: when you need a list of courses for the current user, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_course or explain when not to use it. The phrase 'e.g. active or archived' hints at filtering but gives no exclusion criteria.

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