list_learner_path_enrollments

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the requirement for a separate CSA_SKILLJAR_V1_API_KEY credential and the subtle semantic that path enrollment does not imply course enrollment or progress. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact but information-dense. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter clarification, scope distinction, an explicit alternative, and an auth note. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to interpret the parameter, the key distinction from related tools, the alternative to use, and the authentication requirement. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema provides only a bare string parameter with zero description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that user_id is the learner's Skilljar id, the same value returned by v2's list_students. This gives the agent the semantic meaning needed to call the tool correctly.

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 first sentence clearly states what the tool does: it returns which learning paths a learner is enrolled in. It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes path enrollment from course enrollment, differentiating it from related tools like list_enrollments and list_learner_progress.

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 gives explicit guidance on when this tool is appropriate: it is specifically about path enrollment, not per-course progress, and directs the agent to list_learner_progress for per-course progress. It also clarifies the user_id source, linking to v2's list_students, which prevents a common misuse.

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