List Outcomes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description mostly repeats structured data. What the description does add is the shape of the payload (titles, descriptions, mastery points), which matters because there is no output schema. That is useful but not deep behavioral context.

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 front-loaded, then safety, then the alternative. No padding or restated title.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, that it is safe, and where the sibling fits. Minor gaps remain (no mention of pagination or per-course scoping limits), but nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema even explains the numeric-string format and points to list_courses for retrieval. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

A specific verb plus resource ('List the learning outcomes linked to a course') with the returned fields named (titles, descriptions, mastery points). It is immediately distinguishable from get_outcome, get_outcome_rollup, and get_my_outcome_results.

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 the agent to get_my_outcome_results when the intent is 'your own mastery', which is the most likely confusion. It doesn't mention get_outcome/get_outcome_rollup/list_outcome_groups, but the course-scoped framing makes its place in that family clear.

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