list_course_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that — it notes the folder filter helps with long lists, but says nothing about caching behavior (the refresh parameter exists but isn't explained here) or result volume.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and then the workflow hint. No filler words, no repetition of the tool name or boilerplate.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description is not required to explain return values. It adequately conveys scope and next step, though it omits any mention of pagination or handling of very large resource lists beyond the folder hint.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema (course formats, folder path, refresh semantics). The description only reinforces the folder parameter's purpose, adding nothing about syntax or format beyond what the schema provides — the expected baseline.

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 the resource (course Resources) and enumerates the returned fields (resource_id, folder, type, size), which is more concrete than the bare tool name. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_resource by being a list-oriented enumeration, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'list'.

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 gives actionable routing guidance: use the folder input to narrow long lists, then call get_resource to read a file. That covers when to use this tool and which sibling to reach for next, but it offers no exclusion criteria (e.g. when not to use it) or noted prerequisites.

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