Metis · Course Builder — Get Course Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that parameters are optional and lists the return fields (status, steps, modules, next action), but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Adds some value but could be more explicit.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action in the first sentence and then uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return structure. The single optional parameter is fully explained, making the tool complete for its intended use.

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 only parameter 'slug' is explained in the description as 'Course slug. Leave empty to list all active builds', which adds meaning beyond the minimal schema (just a string with default). Compensates for the 0% schema description coverage well.

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 tool returns the current status of a course build, with the ability to list all active builds when slug is empty. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_course_build, publish_course, and review_course.

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 a clear usage tip (leave slug empty for all active builds) and implies the tool is for checking status. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but for a simple query tool, this is sufficient.

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