list_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 that this is a read-only listing and specifies the returned fields, but it does not clarify the default behavior of course_states when null, whether pagination beyond page_size is supported, or whether results are sorted. These are meaningful gaps for a list endpoint.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, concise args explanations, and a clear returns section. Every part contributes directly to correct invocation, with no filler or repetition.

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 low complexity, optional parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the unspecified default filtering behavior for course_states and the lack of pagination details, which could cause an agent to call the tool with incorrect assumptions.

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 must compensate, and it largely does. It explains page_size as the maximum number of courses and enumerates valid course_states values, adding real meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it stops short of explaining what null course_states means, so the semantics are not fully complete.

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: 'List all courses the authenticated user is enrolled in.' This clearly distinguishes list_courses from siblings like get_course, list_assignments, and list_files, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the goal is to list the authenticated user's enrolled courses. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_course for a single course, but the 'all courses' phrasing makes the intended use evident without being misleading.

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