Get Course Content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns ('content tree showing modules, topics, files, and links') and some behavioral aspects like filtering logic ('case-insensitive substring match on module titles') and depth limiting. However, it doesn't cover permissions, error conditions, pagination, or rate limits.

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidelines, third offers parameter-specific advice. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with key information.

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 operation with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains purpose, usage, and key parameter behaviors. The main gap is lack of output format details (what the content tree structure looks like), but otherwise provides good context given the complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the practical use of moduleTitle ('filter to a specific module instead of fetching the entire tree') and maxDepth ('useful for getting a table of contents without all nested content'), providing clearer semantic guidance.

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 ('fetch') and resource ('content tree for a course') with specific components ('modules, topics, files, and links'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on course content structure rather than announcements, assignments, grades, or other course-related data.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when the user asks about course materials, lecture slides, uploaded files, content structure, or what's in a course module') and provides guidance on parameter-specific usage ('Use moduleTitle to filter to a specific module instead of fetching the entire tree', 'Use maxDepth to limit recursion depth for a table-of-contents view').

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