course_phase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It accurately describes a read operation ('return') without side effects, which aligns with the read-only nature. However, it does not mention error handling or behavior when artifacts are missing.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key outputs. Every word serves a purpose; there is no superfluous content.

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?

Given the tool simplicity (one optional param, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It lists all returned fields, though it does not specify the return format (e.g., single object vs. array), which might be inferred from the singular 'phase'.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself already contains a detailed explanation for 'project_root'.

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 returns specific artifact-derived data: course phase, days_until_exam, and top_miss_pattern, with an explicit list of possible phases. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle ingestion, artifact listing, or course initialization.

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 implies usage when users need phase analysis, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_artifacts' or 'init_course'. The parameter hint about setting 'project_root' provides some context, but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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