get_courses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' and 'Returns' make the read-only, non-destructive nature clear, and the response fields are summarized. It does not mention pagination, filtering, or rate limits, but for a parameterless list endpoint this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds useful information, and the output field summary is concise.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It names the resource, the scope ('all courses'), and the key returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to invoke the tool.

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 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on the returned fields rather than parameters, adding meaningful context about what the result contains.

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 a specific resource ('all courses saved on Garmin Connect'), and further clarifies the output fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_course and delete_course.

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 clearly indicates this is the tool for retrieving all saved courses, which is an unambiguous read-only use case. It does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives or state exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough given the sibling set.

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