What's New

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content by defining what counts as 'new' (newly marked work, unread posts, unattempted quizzes) and that the result spans all courses unless scoped. It omits return ordering, result limits, and whether sinceDays applies beyond announcements.

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, zero filler, with the aggregate scope front-loaded before the usage triggers. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the four result categories, which is enough to set expectations. It stops short of describing ordering, volume limits, or the fact that sinceDays is schema-scoped to announcements only, which leaves a small ambiguity for a read tool with zero required parameters.

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 both courseId ('Only check this course') and sinceDays (default 7, min 1, max 30) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource — a 'catch-up summary across all courses' — and enumerates the exact categories it aggregates (announcements, unread assignment feedback, unread discussion posts, unattempted quizzes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling single-domain tools like get_announcements, get_discussions and get_todo.

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 phrases: 'what's new', 'what they missed', 'whether anything was graded or posted', and 'daily or weekly catch-up'. It does not name a when-not case or point at an alternative (e.g. use get_announcements for a single course's full announcement history), but the intended context is unambiguous.

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