course_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that each returned item has a state and implies read-only navigation, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, how state is represented, or how errors/edge cases behave. Adequate for a simple navigation tool, but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then immediately provides routing to the alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core navigation purpose and sibling distinction. However, it leaves a meaningful gap around `only_unhandled`, which an agent would need to understand to invoke the tool correctly in all cases.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'Course' is vaguely implied by 'one course', but the meaning of `only_unhandled` and the expected format of `course` are completely absent. The description adds almost no value beyond the raw schema names.

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 explicitly identifies the resource: 'Sections and modules of one course', and clarifies it is a navigation tool rather than a search tool. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `search` by contrasting course-tree navigation with whole-space lookup.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to navigate a course rather than to search it' and names the specific alternative for the opposite case: 'For a whole-space lookup by name, use `search`.' This fully routes the agent to the correct tool.

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