list_coursework_materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It states the core behavior (listing materials) but does not disclose important behavioral details such as the default state filter (PUBLISHED), pagination behavior, or that it only returns materials (not assignments). These are significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no wasted words.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks guidance on when to use it versus similar tools and does not mention default behaviors or pagination. It is not incomplete enough to fail, but it leaves room for improvement.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, documenting all three parameters (courseId, pageSize, courseWorkMaterialStates) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List' with a clear resource 'materials, syllabi, lecture slides, and resources posted under Classwork'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_coursework (which lists assignments) and list_announcements. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 the tool is for retrieving materials under Classwork, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus list_coursework or other listing tools. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based on the resource type.

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