edubase_get_course_permission

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond what is structured. It does not mention return type (Boolean likely), what happens if permission is missing (false vs error), or performance implications. For a simple check tool, this is adequate but minimal—the description does not add value beyond existing 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 a single sentence that is concise but under-specified. It does not elaborate on edge cases or return format. While brevity is good, the description fails to use its space to add value beyond the schema and annotations, essentially repeating the title. It could include guidance on output format or hierarchical permission behavior.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no nested objects, an output schema likely exists), the description is minimally complete. It tells you what it does but not what it returns or how to interpret results (e.g., does permission check respect hierarchies? Is it exact match or inheritance?). The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the description still lacks context on permission semantics.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no extra param meaning, but the schema already fully specifies the string identifiers and enum values. With full coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate, and the description's lack of redundancy keeps it at 3. However, the schema's 'permission' enum is well-documented, so no deduction.

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 it checks permissions on a course for a user, which matches the name and title. It is distinct from sibling tools like edubase_get_class_permission, which likely checks class-level permissions. A sibling named edubase_post_course_permission exists for granting permissions, so this tool's purpose as a read-only check is well-differentiated.

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 implies this is the appropriate tool to verify course permissions, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like edubase_get_class_permission or edubase_get_exam_permission. It does not mention that this is read-only or that it requires specific arguments. No usage exclusions or triggers are provided beyond the schema's required fields.

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