list_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific claim that enrollments and favorites are not modified, which gives concrete behavioral context beyond the annotations and is consistent with them (no contradiction).

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 sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a concise exclusion. It is efficient with no waste, meeting the standard for good structure.

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 simple list tool with one optional boolean and an output schema present, the description covers the core function but omits any mention of the include_archived parameter, leaving an agent without guidance on when to set it. The omission creates a notable gap in completeness.

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 description makes no mention of the single parameter 'include_archived', and schema description coverage is 0%. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the tool definition itself provides no explanation of its meaning or default behavior, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action (list) and resource (the user's courses), and explicitly notes it does not modify enrollments or favorites, distinguishing it from mutation tools. It lacks explicit differentiation from other list tools like list_course_contents, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 the tool is for listing the user's courses and reinforces its read-only nature, but it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling list tools such as list_course_participants or list_my_groups. Usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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