courses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state values and the meaning of 'pending', which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it describe any side effects, pagination, or error behavior. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but it is not stated explicitly.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by valuable context about state and rule. Every sentence adds meaning, with no filler. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and state semantics. However, it omits any explanation of the 'include_ignored' parameter, which is a gap. It also doesn't mention any ordering or pagination, but that may be covered by the output schema.

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, 'include_ignored', is a boolean with a default of false, and its name is self-explanatory. However, the description does not mention it at all, and since the schema has no description coverage, the agent must infer its meaning from the name alone. This leaves ambiguity about how it interacts with the 'watched courses' filter.

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 verb 'list' and resource 'watched courses', with additional details about unhandled counts and next deadline. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'deadlines' and 'backlog' by specifying the scope as watched courses. The mention of 'rule' and 'state' adds depth to what the tool provides.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it implies usage for understanding course states via the 'rule' and 'state' fields. It does not name any sibling tools or provide exclusions, so the guidance is only implied. This is acceptable but not explicit.

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