list_courses

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the default enrollment state, the returned fields, and that the tool lists courses. However, it omits behavioral traits like pagination behavior, error conditions, authentication requirements, or whether the list is ordered. The limit parameter suggests pagination but is not explained.

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?

Two sentences covering the essential action, default behavior, and output fields. No wasted words. The most critical information is front-loaded. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite low complexity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not cover parameter details, error scenarios, or differentiate from siblings like list_assignments which also have enrollment_state. The returned fields list is helpful but incomplete without output schema or example.

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. It does not explain either parameter: enrollment_state (only implied default of 'active' but not the possible enum values) and limit (no explanation of its effect or default). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema structurally provides.

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 clearly states the verb (List), resource (courses), and scope (authenticated student's). It adds specificity with 'Defaults to active enrollments' and mentions returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_course (single course) or list_assignments (different resource).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_course for a single course or other listing tools. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection. The agent must infer usage from the verb alone.

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