get_course_contents

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: everything is returned in a single call, and it normalizes across three distinct course formats. It does not discuss response size or behavior when a course/format is unknown, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and how it behaves across formats, with the filter detail last. Slight redundancy in restating the section-filter examples already present in the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does: sections/units with activities including type, name, URL and completion status. Combined with the schema-documented parameters and the read-only annotation, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the exact string examples ("3", "unidad 3") that the description repeats. `include_labels` is not mentioned at all in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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: it returns the full tree of a course (sections/units) with their activities, in one call. The word "completo" and "en una sola llamada" make it clear this is the bulk-retrieval counterpart to list_courses, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It says the tool works with the temas/semanas/tiles formats and that `section` narrows output to one unit, which implicitly tells the agent when to use it. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over list_courses, list_resources or list_assignments, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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