query_course_resources_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'gets a summary', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, has no side effects, or requires any permissions. The behavioral transparency is minimal and adds little beyond what the name suggests.

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word is essential, no fluff or redundant information. It appropriately prioritizes the key action and context.

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 has only two parameters and is a simple query, the description is somewhat adequate. However, there is no output schema, so the agent does not know what fields the summary contains. For a complete understanding of the tool's output, additional information would be beneficial, but the current description meets a minimum viable level.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (e.g., group_id explained as obtained from query_teacher_groups, view_mode with options). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage (100%). No extra semantic value is provided.

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 '获取课程资源摘要' clearly states the tool retrieves a summary of course resources. The parenthetical '推荐 AI 默认使用' suggests it is the preferred default, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'query_course_resources' which likely returns detailed data. However, the name and brief description imply a concise overview, making the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '推荐 AI 默认使用' implies it is the default, but there is no mention of when not to use it or what other tools (e.g., 'query_course_resources') cover different needs. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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