list_my_courses

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: results are cached and the cache is only bypassed by refresh, and the default scope is the latest term only — both material to interpreting results correctly.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: output shape first, default scope second, cross-tool key format third. Each sentence carries distinct, actionable information and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 spelled out, yet the description still names the key returned fields. Combined with the caching note, the past-term scoping rule, and the accepted identifier formats, an agent has everything needed to call this 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%, so both parameters are already documented ('Skip the cache and ask Sakai again', 'Also list courses from earlier terms'). The description restates include_past's effect in slightly different words but adds no new syntax, format or interaction detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('List the student's UG Sakai course sites') and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (site_id, course code, term, short summary). No sibling tool lists courses, and the mention of course code/name/site_id keys distinguishes it from the detail-oriented siblings like list_course_resources or list_assignments.

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?

Gives a concrete default-behavior rule ('Shows only the latest term unless include_past is true') and points to interoperability ('Other tools accept the course code, name or site_id'), which implicitly tells the agent this is the discovery step before other calls. It stops short of explicitly saying when to use it versus alternatives, so it isn't a full 5.

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