skool_get_lesson

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states the operation is 'read-only', discloses that many lessons are video-only and 'content' may be empty, and indicates what is returned with and without lesson_id. This goes beyond the name and provides essential runtime behavior, though it could mention error handling or response shape in more detail.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only nature. The alternative behaviors are explained compactly without fluff, and the video-only caveat is included efficiently. Excellent structure and no wasted words.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately describes the return behavior: modules/lessons list (id+title) without lesson_id, and lesson content/metadata with lesson_id, including a caveat about empty content. It covers the essential information for a read-only tool, though it omits potential error conditions or pagination, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: course_id is sourced from skool_list_courses and yields modules/lessons; lesson_id is a child id that triggers content/metadata retrieval. It also warns about empty content. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter titles, though it doesn't specify formats or constraints.

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's primary action ('Read a classroom course'), the resource (course/lesson), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like skool_get_post and skool_get_conversation by focusing on course/lesson content. It also specifies the scope: without lesson_id it returns modules/lessons, with lesson_id it returns lesson content/metadata, avoiding ambiguity.

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 clear usage context by directing the agent to obtain course_id from skool_list_courses, and explains the optional lesson_id behavior. It implies a typical workflow (list courses → get lesson) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like skool_get_post. Still, the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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