sync_course

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

The description discloses rich behavioral details beyond the annotations: it writes to a local folder, creates one subfolder per section, produces INDEX.md with links/due dates/item ids, downloads only new or changed files, skips files over a size limit, and explicitly states nothing on Moodle is changed. The annotations (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only) are consistent with this local-write behavior, so there is no contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core behavior is in the first sentence, followed by a concise behavior summary and a short Args block. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema metadata.

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 tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects: what gets downloaded, where it goes, how re-runs behave, safety, and parameter meaning. The presence of the output schema means not explaining return values is acceptable.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It compensates excellently: course is explained with accepted forms ('CS-214', numeric id, or part of the name), folder gives the default path pattern, and max_file_mb is described with a concrete example ('lecture videos'). This meaningfully exceeds the bare type information in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download a course's materials into a local folder, one subfolder per section.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file, search, and course_overview, all of which serve different purposes. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 intended use case (getting a local copy of course materials) is clear from the purpose itself, and the description adds context that it is cheap to re-run and changes nothing on Moodle, implying repeated safe use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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