List Course Nicknames

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive profiles, and 'Read-only' merely restates them, but 'Only you see nicknames' adds a genuine privacy/visibility trait not captured by any structured field. No mention of ordering or empty-result behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences, purpose stated first, then the safety/visibility fact, then the alternative routing. Every sentence carries information and none is filler.

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 zero-argument read-only list with rich annotations, the definition covers what it does, who sees the data, and where to go to mutate. The only soft spot is that, with no output schema, it doesn't hint at the shape of a returned nickname entry.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the personal nicknames you have given courses') with the scoping qualifier 'personal', which separates it from the sibling mutation tools set_course_nickname/remove_course_nickname named in the same breath.

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?

Explicitly routes modification intent to set_course_nickname and remove_course_nickname, so the agent knows when not to use this tool. It stops short of stating prerequisites or when the list would be empty, but the read-versus-write split is unambiguous.

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