get_course_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description reinforces this with 'Read' and adds specific context by enumerating the components (syllabus, resources, sessions, mastery, question statistics), which gives the agent a clearer picture of what data will be accessed. It does not disclose any unexpected behaviors and is fully consistent with the read-only annotation.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and the scope 'one course'. It lists the data categories without unnecessary words, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning, and there is no 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and what it returns. It enumerates the data categories, which is helpful. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but for a read-only tool with a single parameter, these are minor gaps.

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 only parameter course_id has a schema description 'Course ID' which provides 100% coverage of its meaning. The description does not add any additional semantic detail about the parameter, such as format, source, or constraints. Since the schema already documents the parameter adequately, the description adds no extra value here.

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 specific verb 'Read' and a specific resource: 'one course's syllabus, resources, sessions, mastery and question statistics'. It clearly identifies the scope (one course) and the components, making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like learning_overview or get_mastery_path, which might also read course-related data, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools. An agent has no information about when to prefer this over get_course_syllabus, learning_overview, or other read tools, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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