jcourse_get_course

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it surfaces user-specific state (follow status, my enrollment, my review), hinting at an auth dependency, but since an output schema exists the enumerated return fields carry limited extra disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence that lists the payload with zero filler. Every token contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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?

With an output schema, full param coverage, and rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient. Minor gaps remain: it does not state the auth requirement for the personalized fields nor how to obtain a valid course_id, but these are small against the structured data provided.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('平台对象 ID，正整数'), so the schema already documents type, minimum, and meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.

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 (读取) and resource (课程详情) and enumerates the exact data returned: teacher group, semester, rating distribution, follow status, enrollment, and my review. This lets an agent know precisely what it retrieves, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like jcourse_get_course_review_trend or jcourse_get_teacher.

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: call it to fetch a single course's detail given a course_id. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as jcourse_search_courses for obtaining IDs, or siblings for reviews/trends, leaving routing to inference.

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