jcourse_list_enrolled_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not need to restate it. What the description adds is the cross-tool dependency: the returned ID is the input for a delete operation, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of describing result shape or whether the list is scoped to current term or all history.

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?

Two tight clauses, zero filler. The primary purpose is stated first and the downstream-use note follows, so an agent skimming the first few characters already knows 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained. Parameter count is zero, so there is no schema gap to compensate for, and the description covers the one non-obvious fact: the ID feeds deletion. Slightly incomplete in not indicating scope (all enrollments vs. active only), but that is a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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 the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter guidance and instead spends its words on the return-value semantics an agent needs (per-record IDs).

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+resource in the first clause ('列出我的选课记录' — list my enrolled course records) plus a second clause that identifies what each entry contains (record ID). This distinguishes it from the many other jcourse list_* siblings (followed, ignored, my_reviews) without ambiguity about which collection is returned.

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 clause '删除记录时需要使用该 ID' implies the tool is a prerequisite step for jcourse_delete_enrollment, which is a real usage signal beyond the name. However, it never names the sibling tool explicitly and gives no when-not guidance (e.g. how it differs from jcourse_list_followed_courses or jcourse_list_ignored_courses).

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