Get Course Content

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 states the output format ('nested table of contents') but does not mention any edge behaviors such as whether only published content is included, pagination, or access requirements. The description is adequate but not rich; however, the presence of an output schema lessens the need to detail return fields.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses space efficiently by including usage examples and a pointer to a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description provides strong usage context and links to get_topic_file. The only gap is not explicitly distinguishing from get_course_outline, which might also relate to course content, but this is a minor omission given the overall clarity.

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%: the only parameter (courseId) is fully described in the schema as the 'course org unit (ou) ID from list_courses'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond referencing 'a course'. This matches the baseline of 3 for well-covered schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the content modules and materials (lectures, slides, files, links) for a course as a nested table of contents.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on content modules and materials, not announcements, grades, or assignments. It also names the complementary tool get_topic_file, further differentiating functions.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this as the primary source for course activity questions like...' followed by concrete examples. It also states what to do after using this tool ('After identifying relevant topics, call get_topic_file to inspect PDFs or PowerPoints'). This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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