Generate Course Index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions generating indexes and not downloading missing files, but omits details on side effects (e.g., file creation/overwriting), permissions, return values, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably writes local files.

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, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a distinguishing qualifier. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks essential context such as what the generated indexes contain, whether files are written to output_dir, what happens if files are missing, and any return or error semantics. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent must guess.

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 coverage is 100% (both course_id and output_dir are described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema – it mentions the output format but does not elaborate on parameter behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool generates local JSON/Markdown course indexes, and the qualifier 'without downloading missing files' distinguishes it from download-oriented siblings. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or elaborate on scope beyond that, so it lacks the explicit sibling differentiation seen in top-tier descriptions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_course_bundle or plan_course_download. The phrase 'without downloading missing files' implies a use case but does not state conditions, exclusions, or name any sibling, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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