list_courses

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic purpose and the yearsem filter. It doesn't mention return format, pagination, ordering, default behavior when yearsem is omitted, or any side effects. For a read-only list tool this is minimal, but the lack of any behavioral detail beyond the core function leaves the agent guessing about output and edge cases.

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 a single, efficient sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Enrolled courses') and then explains the optional parameter with an example. There is zero waste and every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate for a basic call: it names the resource and the filter. However, it omits default behavior (what happens if yearsem is not provided) and any indication of the response shape (likely a list of course objects). Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail about return structure or defaults would make it complete.

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 provides no description coverage (0%), so the description must explain the parameter. It does: 'yearsem filters to one semester, e.g. \'2568/1\''. This adds meaning about the purpose and format of the parameter, which the schema alone lacks. It doesn't explain what happens if omitted, but for a single optional parameter this is a useful addition.

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 indicates the resource (enrolled courses) and the purpose (listing them), even though it uses a noun phrase 'Enrolled courses' rather than an explicit 'List...'. It's distinguishable from siblings like list_assignments and list_grades which target different resources, so an agent can infer what it does from the name plus description.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used for viewing course enrollment, nor does it contrast with sibling tools. The agent must infer its role from the name and description alone, without any contextual cue about when to prefer it.

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