Get Classlist Emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by indicating it fetches email addresses for all roles in a course, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines. Both sentences are necessary and add value, with no redundant or verbose language. It efficiently conveys key information in a compact form.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage well, but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned emails) and error cases. Since there's no output schema, some guidance on return values would enhance completeness, but it's still strong for this context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'courseId' clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 specific action ('Fetch all email addresses') and resource ('for everyone in a course'), explicitly listing the roles included (instructors, TAs, and students). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_roster (which might return broader roster info) or get_my_courses (user-specific), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'when the user wants a list of emails for a class, needs to email the whole class, or wants contact info for everyone enrolled.' This gives clear context for when to use this tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the specificity of the scenarios is sufficient for a top score.

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