Get course content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies read-only, and 'module/topic table of contents' indicates the response is a structural outline, but the description does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or nesting/pagination behavior. This is acceptable for a simple get but leaves some traits unstated.

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?

One compact sentence with a clear verb and object, no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action and resource effectively.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, the schema is complete, and the description states the nature of the output as a module/topic table of contents. Without an output schema, the description does not detail the exact return structure, but for a basic read-only content outline this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already fully describes courseId, including its source from list_courses. The description's phrase 'for a course' merely echoes the schema without adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('module/topic table of contents for a course'), making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_grades and get_assignments. The phrase 'table of contents' clearly narrows the scope to a structural overview, not the course content itself.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving course structure but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It also doesn't mention in the description that courseId comes from list_courses, though that is documented in the schema. Usage is inferable rather than explicitly stated.

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