get_course_context

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only aggregate and discloses the composite sections returned, which is the most important behavioral trait, but says nothing about permissions, cost, rate limits, or whether it silently truncates results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource is named before the payload list. It is efficient, though the colon-list format leans on enumeration rather than explanation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and four wholly undocumented parameters, the description should explain the aggregation behavior and parameter effects but does not. An agent still cannot tell what 'days' scopes, whether 'include_content' can disable a listed section, or how results are shaped.

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 0% across four parameters. The description's mention of announcements/content loosely gestures at announcement_limit and include_content, but 'days' (the default 14 window) and the 'course' identifier format are completely undefined, and no defaults or units are explained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('high-value context for one course') and enumerates the payload sections: overview, announcements, assessments, deadlines, content. It reads as an aggregator, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_course_overview, get_announcements, or get_course_content that cover the same ground individually.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this bundled call versus the many narrower siblings. An agent seeing get_course_overview, get_announcements, and get_assignments alongside this tool has no stated rule for choosing one over the other.

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