Get Course Roster

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the default privacy behavior (only instructors/TAs), the optional full list via includeStudents, and the return content (names, emails, roles). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, which is acceptable for a read-only query tool returning structured data.

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 consists of two clear, concise sentences. The first states the core function and data returned, the second provides usage guidance and default behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers the return content, default behavior, and parameter usage. The absence of an explicit output schema is mitigated by describing the return fields (names, emails, roles). It could mention pagination or error conditions, but for typical roster queries this is sufficient.

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% (all three parameters described). The description adds value by explaining the default for includeStudents ('Default is instructors and TAs only') and the purpose of searchTerm ('filter by name'). This goes beyond the schema's description of 'Optional search term to filter by name' by providing usage context.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'roster', and lists included roles (instructors, TAs, optionally students) and data fields (names, emails, roles). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_classlist_emails (likely only emails) and get_my_grades (grades data). The purpose is specific and distinct.

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 use cases: 'when the user asks about classmates, instructor contact info, TA emails, professor names, or who's in a class'. It also notes the default behavior (only instructors/TAs) and when to use includeStudents for full list. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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