Lists synced course files or external links by course, week, or query, returning paths for read_file; use search_content to search document text.
列已同步本地课件或外链，不搜索正文；搜正文用 search_content，读取 path 用 read_file。返回文件/外链和可供 read_file 使用的路径。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week | No | 教学周编号，如 8 | |
| links | No | true=列外链；须同时给 course | |
| query | No | 按文件名或路径筛选 | |
| course | No | 课程号，如 FIT2102；省略=全部 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Input schema / properties / course / descriptionAdded value: +"课程号，如 FIT2102；省略=全部"Input schema / properties / links / descriptionAdded value: +"true=列外链；须同时给 course"Input schema / properties / query / descriptionAdded value: +"按文件名或路径筛选"Input schema / properties / week / descriptionAdded value: +"教学周编号，如 8"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description adds genuine context beyond structured data: it discloses the return content (files/links) and that returned paths are consumable by read_file, enabling chaining. It stops short of pagination or ordering behavior, so not a 5.
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?
Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by exclusions and alternatives. No filler sentences; every clause carries routing or return-value information.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return contents and the downstream usability of paths. That is sufficient for a read-only list tool, though result ordering or filtering interactions between week/links/query are left unaddressed.
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 100%, so the schema already documents week, links, query and course. The description only implies the links scope (列外链) without adding format or default semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (列/list) and resource (已同步本地课件或外链), and explicitly scopes it as not searching content. It draws clear boundaries against the siblings search_content and read_file, so an agent can route without opening the schema.
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?
Gives explicit negative guidance (不搜索正文) plus named alternatives with their selecting conditions: search_content for full-text, read_file for reading a path. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives pattern.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.