list_materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the output format (folder, name, URL) and does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. It also doesn't explain how the optional cv_cid parameter affects behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and result. However, it is under-specified, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it omits crucial parameter context.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide enough to call it correctly. It fails to explain the meaning of cv_cid, which is essential for filtering. It also doesn't elaborate on the context of 'MCV' or clarify if materials are from a single course or multiple. Overall, the description is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 zero description for the cv_cid parameter (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention it at all. An agent has no way to know that cv_cid likely stands for course ID and filters the materials list. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which itself is opaque.

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 states a clear verb ('list') and resource ('course materials') and specifies the return fields (folder, name, URL). It distinguishes from siblings like download_material (which implies downloading rather than listing) and list_assignments (which lists assignments). However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or state scope (e.g., per course), leaving some ambiguity about whether it lists materials for all courses or a specific one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for listing materials while download_material is for downloading, nor does it specify any conditions or prerequisites. The purpose implies usage, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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