list_course_contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds a behavioral detail: it only returns 'visible' content, which is extra context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, error handling, or what 'visible' precisely means (e.g., if it excludes hidden or draft items).

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately concise, front-loads the key action, and is easy to parse. 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain parameter semantics, return format, or edge cases. The 'visible' filter is mentioned but not defined, and there is no mention of error conditions or pagination behavior. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly without additional information.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter explanation. It does not explain course_id, section_id, limit, or offset. An agent cannot infer the semantics of section_id (whether it filters by section) or how limit/offset govern pagination. The description only lists what the tool returns, not how the parameters control that output.

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 verb ('Lista') and the resource ('secciones, actividades, páginas, enlaces y archivos visibles de una materia'). It specifies exactly what content types are returned and includes the scope 'visibles' (visible). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_course_resources, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where it should be preferred over similar listing tools like list_course_resources or list_course_participants. The description lacks exclusions or context that would help an agent decide between this and other content-related tools.

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