course_contents

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates the output is what students see in order, but it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, or behavior on invalid input. It adds some context about the output perspective but lacks safety and error details.

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 short sentences, front-loading the resource and adding a clarifying note about cmid. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but omits details about the response structure, such as whether sections include names or activities are nested. It's adequate but could be more complete about the returned data shape.

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 single parameter courseid is fully described in the schema ('Course id from my_courses'), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The mention of 'cmid' is about the output, not the parameter, so the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 identifies the resource as course sections and modules, and adds the ordering and student perspective. It is distinct from sibling tools like assignments or gradebook, though it doesn't explicitly state the action (e.g., 'retrieves'), it's implied by describing the content.

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 tool versus others, nor any mention of alternative tools or conditions. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer when it's appropriate.

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