tool_get_course_roster

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 effectively describes the return format ('table grouped by role with name, email, SID, and submission count') and access requirements ('instructor or TA access'), covering key behavioral aspects. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, but provides sufficient context for safe use.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose, return format, access requirements, and parameter explanation. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, read-only operation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value details), the description is complete. It covers purpose, access control, return format, and parameter semantics, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'course_id' is 'The Gradescope course ID', clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic title 'Course Id'. This adequately covers the single parameter's semantics.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('full roster for a course'), and scope ('students, TAs, instructors'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tool_get_assignment_submissions or tool_get_student_submission that focus on submissions rather than roster data.

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 specifies when to use this tool by stating 'Requires instructor or TA access to the course', providing clear context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as tool_get_assignment_graders which might overlap in some contexts.

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