jcourse_list_ignored_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds one useful behavioral fact the annotations don't carry — that 'ignored' means notification level 2 — but says nothing about auth requirements, sort semantics, or result completeness across pages.

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 with zero filler; the meaning of 'ignored' is parenthetically defined rather than buried. Brevity is appropriate for a simple paginated list, though it leaves the ordering options unexplained.

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 values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a list tool with a sort/order surface (three order_by values plus ascend) that the description never touches, the definition is only minimally sufficient.

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 coverage is only 50%: page and page_size are documented in-schema, while ascend and order_by (an enum of rating_score / rating_count / rating_avg) have no schema description. The description's 分页 adds nothing beyond the schema and gives no meaning for the ordering parameters, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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 (分页列出) and resource (忽略的课程), and defines the otherwise-ambiguous term 'ignored' as notification level 2, which an agent could not infer alone. It does not explicitly name the sibling list tools (jcourse_list_enrolled_courses / jcourse_list_followed_courses) it differs from, so 4 rather than 5.

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 scope is narrow enough that usage is implied (this is the only tool that returns ignored courses), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of how a course becomes ignored (jcourse_set_course_notification), and no routing away from the other list_* siblings.

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