aeroedu_course_list

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and adds useful behavioral details about return fields and status filtering. It does not contradict annotations and provides valuable context beyond structural metadata.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and return fields, one sentence for usage tip. No unnecessary words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (id, name, subject, class, status, chapters, students). Three parameters are fully described in schema, and the description covers all essential aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema (only a hint about status='all'), but does not compensate significantly. Thus score remains 3.

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 tool lists courses for the current teacher on AeroEdu, specifying the exact fields returned (id, name, subject, class, status, chapters, students). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on different resources or operations.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (listing current teacher's courses) and a usage tip for status='all' to include draft/archived. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling tools are sufficiently different that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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