Get Course Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-scope behavior are covered structurally. The description adds only the return shape (modules/topics/files/links), and with no output schema it does not mention pagination, size limits, or how deep an unfiltered tree may go. Useful context, but modest given the read-only operation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then when-to-use triggers, then the two optional narrowing parameters. Front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly shoulders the burden of stating what is returned (a content tree of modules, topics, files, links) and how to scope it. It stops short of describing traversal size, ordering, or truncation behavior for deep trees, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, making 3 the correct baseline. The description reinforces moduleTitle with filter semantics ('instead of fetching the entire tree') and maxDepth with purpose ('table-of-contents view'), adding rationale but no new syntax or format detail.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('content tree for a course') and enumerates what the tree contains: modules, topics, files, and links. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like get_syllabus, get_assignment_files, or download_file, which each target a narrower 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?

Gives explicit trigger contexts ('when the user asks about course materials, lecture slides, uploaded files, content structure'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It also advises using moduleTitle to avoid fetching the entire tree and maxDepth for a TOC view, but it never names an alternative sibling tool for overlapping needs (e.g. get_syllabus).

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