get_coursesRetrieve enrolled courses with compact fields—code, name, class, faculty, credits, and next class times—to check your current schedule and academic load.
Enrolled courses with compact fields (code, name, class, faculty, credits, next class times).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, but the 'get' prefix implies a read-only operation and 'compact fields' usefully signals a lightweight response rather than a full course record. It still says nothing about permissions, scope of enrollment (current term only?), or pagination, leaving notable gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource scope and then the field list. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials, and the field list is a helpful preview even though the output schema already documents the return shape. Only the absence of any usage/routing context keeps it from a 5.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline 4 applies.
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 names a specific resource and scope ('enrolled courses') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from get_timetable or get_assignments. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, and it never explicitly says it is a retrieval operation, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools such as get_timetable, which overlaps on 'next class times'. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.