share_get_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information about what the response contains (details, intro, syllabus, category, optionally classes), but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid course_id or any access restrictions.

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 compact sentence with the core resource listed first and the optional class listing trailing after the semicolon. Nothing is wasted, though the enumerations are dense and could be split for easier scanning.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the definition covers what is needed to invoke it correctly; return values need not be described. The remaining gap is routing guidance against same-domain siblings that also read course or class data.

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 50%: course_id is documented in the schema, and include_classes has no schema description at all. The clause '可同时列教学班' effectively explains the effect of include_classes, but it never ties that meaning to the parameter name or states its default (false), so the compensation is only partial.

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?

The description names a specific verb (读取) plus the resources returned: course details, intro, syllabus, and category, and notes that teaching classes can be included. That is clear enough to separate it from list-style siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with share_list_course_classes, which also exposes class listings.

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 only implied: the tool is for fetching one course's detail, and the clause '可同时列教学班' hints when to set include_classes. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of alternatives such as share_search_courses for discovery or share_list_course_classes for class-only listing.

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