share_get_course_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are grouped by teaching class, unarchived items are listed separately, and returns are capped per group. It does not explain whether the cap silently truncates results or how to fetch beyond the limit.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence: the primary action comes first, followed by the separate unarchived listing and the per-group limit. Every clause contributes information, though the compressed semicolon structure slightly reduces immediate clarity.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is adequate for a two-parameter read tool but leaves a selection gap: it does not explain when to use this tree-oriented tool instead of sibling material listing/search tools.

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 has its own description, while max_materials_per_class does not. The phrase '限制每组返回数量' compensates by clarifying that max_materials_per_class controls the per-group return cap, but it adds no units, default behavior, or interpretation of 'group' beyond the schema's minimum/maximum/default.

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 states a specific action (读取课程资料树) and scope (按教学班), plus two distinguishing outputs: unarchived materials listed separately and a per-group return limit. The word '树' helps differentiate it from flat list siblings like share_list_course_materials, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It implies the use case: retrieving a course material tree organized by teaching class, with unarchived materials surfaced separately. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not contrast with share_list_course_materials, share_search_materials, or share_get_material.

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