Get course manifest

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must convey behavior. It clearly warns about the discrepancy between timing module numbers and handbook chapters, and instructs to use the crosswalk for retrieval. This adds meaningful behavioral guidance beyond the tool's name and parameters.

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 brief yet packed with relevant information. It front-loads the main content and then provides a crucial caveat about the crosswalk in two sentences. No unnecessary fluff.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and highlights a critical usage detail (the crosswalk). It doesn't describe return format, but that's not required without an output schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to use it.

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 single parameter course_id is well-described in the schema ('Course identifier, e.g. "biofuels"'), so the description adds little beyond that. The description does imply that the manifest is for a single course, but it doesn't elaborate on the parameter syntax or format. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns a full course manifest with metadata, approved document status, and the module crosswalk. It uses specific nouns and distinguishes itself as a comprehensive overview tool, especially by highlighting the crosswalk component.

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?

It provides concrete usage advice: 'always scope retrieval using the crosswalk rather than the module number' and explains the mismatch between module numbers and chapters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_module_crosswalk, though the emphasis on full manifest implies when to use it.

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