skool_list_courses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key trait of being read-only, which implies no side effects or destructive actions. It also indicates what data will be returned. However, it doesn't mention any potential limitations such as pagination, rate limits, or behavior when no courses exist. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 exactly two concise sentences, with the primary action and scope front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose and return fields, the second gives a clear pointer to the related lesson tool. There is zero wasted wording, and each word earns its place. This is an ideal structure for clarity and scannability.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides all necessary information: what the tool does, the scope, the read-only nature, and the exact fields returned. It also suggests how to proceed with a course id. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from calling the tool correctly. A slightly higher score would require more detail about return edge cases or error handling, but this is not essential for a simple list operation.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (trivially, since there are no properties to document). The description adds no parameter explanations because none are needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't attempt to explain anything beyond the absence of parameters, which is correct. No additional semantic value is required or provided, but the baseline is met.

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 states a clear verb ('List'), a specific resource ('classroom courses'), and a scope ('in your community'). It also explicitly marks the operation as 'read-only' and lists the returned fields (id, title, description), fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_posts or get_lesson. This is a precise, unambiguous statement of purpose.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool (to list courses) and directs it to the related tool (skool_get_lesson) for further action, using a course id. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with other listing tools like skool_list_posts, the domain-specific focus and the natural next-step suggestion provide clear practical guidance. It could be more explicit about alternatives, but the intent is clear.

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