Course Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds value by explaining the return structure (modules and item types) and the 'before fetching' workflow. It doesn't address openWorldHint implications (e.g., potential incomplete listings) but doesn't contradict annotations either.

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 concise sentences, immediately stating the tool's purpose and usage. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple listing tool with one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and what to expect. It's complete for the agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter (course_id, from my_courses), so baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific detail beyond implying the input is a course, which is sufficient given 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool maps a course's structure—modules in order and items inside—using the specific verb 'map.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_files and get_page by emphasizing it's for discovering material before fetching it, not fetching 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 explicitly says 'Use this to find what material exists before fetching any of it,' which clearly tells the agent when to use this tool (discovery phase) and implies alternatives (fetching tools) for actual content retrieval. It provides a clear context and usage directive.

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