List courses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without mentioning whether it is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects. For a listing operation, read-only is implied, but the description does not confirm it or describe the output shape, which is a gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. There is no fluff, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters or complex behavior.

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 straightforward list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It tells the agent what it lists, but does not specify what a course entry includes or whether the list is sorted, which could be relevant. Given the simplicity, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing about parameters because there are none, which is appropriate. No compensation is needed.

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 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: courses the user is enrolled in on POLITEMall. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on content, grades, announcements, etc., so an agent can infer its role without additional detail.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings. There is no mention of scenarios like 'use this to get an overview of your courses' or any exclusions.

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