Get My Courses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Fetch') and specifies what data is returned, but doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage guidance with concrete examples. Every element serves a purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It clearly states what the tool does, when to use it, and what data is returned. The main gap is the lack of output format details, but given the tool's simplicity and the description's clarity about returned attributes, this is a minor limitation.

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, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, this is acceptable. The baseline would be 3, but the description's clear purpose and usage guidelines elevate this slightly.

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'), resource ('your enrolled Brightspace courses'), and key attributes returned ('names, codes, and IDs'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_assignments or get_my_grades by focusing on course enrollment data rather than specific course content or grades.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance with multiple examples ('when the user asks about their courses, enrolled classes, what they're taking this semester, or needs a course ID for other queries'). This gives the agent clear contextual triggers for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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