ntulearn_get_course_contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the recursive tree-walk model, the hasChildren drill-down signal, and pagination support. It stops short of stating rate limits or page-size guidance.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two-mode rule, then pagination. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 read-only traversal tool with an output schema (which carries return-shape detail) and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: how to start at the root, how to descend, and that results are paginated.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the omit-vs-pass semantics of parent_id and the hasChildren precondition for valid drill-downs, which the schema alone only weakly conveys. It also reinforces the pagination intent of limit/offset.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Walk a course's content tree'. It immediately frames the tool as hierarchical traversal, which distinguishes it from siblings like ntulearn_search_course_content (search) and ntulearn_get_assignments (flat listing).

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?

Gives explicit conditions for the two modes: omit parent_id for top-level items, pass parent_id where hasChildren=true to drill in. However it never names an alternative tool (e.g. search_course_content) for when the agent already knows what it's looking for, so no exclusions are stated.

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