get_course_outline

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds real value by disclosing the truncation behavior for file-heavy modules and the module_id escape hatch. It does not say whether truncation is flagged in the response, which is the one gap.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed immediately by the truncation caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic noun-phrase opening is slightly less scannable than an explicit verb statement.

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 output schema, the description does the work of describing return values (sections, activities, links, files, file refs) and a key limitation (truncation). The remaining hole is the meaning/format of the required 'course' argument.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It explains module_id well (pass it to list every file of one module), but the required 'course' parameter is left entirely undefined — no indication whether it takes an ID, slug, or name. Partial compensation justifies a 3.

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?

Names a specific resource (course outline) and enumerates its contents: sections, activities, links, files, plus the file refs that feed read_file/download_files. That cross-reference distinguishes it from siblings like list_courses and read_file. It stops short of a clean verb+resource statement, but an agent can tell what it returns.

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?

It implies a workflow role by tying the returned file refs to read_file/download_files, and it gives a concrete workaround for truncated modules via module_id. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_courses or mirror_course, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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