list_path_items

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: returned order is the path order, there is no rank field so rows should not be sorted, items reference courses not published courses, and a separate API key is required. These are non-obvious facts an agent needs.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter provenance, ordering constraint, domain behavior, and authentication requirement. The formatting is clear and scannable with no redundant content.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only listing tool. It explains ordering, the non-published-course reference behavior, and the auth requirement, while the output schema presumably covers return value details. An agent has enough to call it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains path_id as the sequence from list_paths, but page and page_size are left to their names and defaults. Coverage is partial, though the most important parameter is clarified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the courses in a learning path, in order.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_paths (lists paths) and get_path (retrieves a single path).

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 provides clear context by explaining that path_id comes from list_paths and that ordering is meaningful. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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