course_content

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It helpfully describes the shape of the return content (topic plan text plus a file list), but says nothing about read-only safety, behavior when the course code is invalid or the page is empty, expected size of the payload, or whether authentication is required.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates what is returned. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this covers what the caller gets back and what it needs to supply. The remaining gaps — overlap with read_learn_page and failure/empty behavior — are modest but real.

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% and the single parameter is documented with an example ("Ders kodu, ör. MCE350"). The description only obliquely implies a course code via "Dersin" and adds no further meaning, so the schema is doing all the work and the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (the course's "Ders İçeriği" page) and states exactly what it yields: the weekly topic plan text and a list of course files (PDF/PPTX). That is a concrete verb+resource, though it never differentiates itself from the nearby read_learn_page sibling, which sounds like a comparable page-reading tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the content it returns — an agent can infer it should call this when it needs the syllabus/weekly plan or attached lecture files. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no naming of the obvious alternative (read_learn_page) to disambiguate between them.

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