get_course_replacements

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation and the parenthetical clarifies the domain concept, but the description does not address what happens when a course has no replacements, edge cases, auth requirements, or rate limits. The burden is only partially met.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler — the verb and resource appear first and the parenthetical adds useful domain context efficiently. It is concise without being tautological.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core purpose is adequately stated. Yet with 0% parameter coverage, no usage exclusions, and no annotations, an agent still lacks guidance on parameter formats and sibling selection — clear gaps for a tool with three required parameters.

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% and the description barely compensates: it only hints that the three codes jointly identify a course. It does not explain formats, constraints, or relationships between department_code, semester_code, and course_code (e.g., how a semester code is formatted or whether department_code is an abbreviation). The self-explanatory parameter names carry most of the weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('equivalent and auto-replacement courses (Denk Dersler) for a specific METU course'). The domain term 'Denk Dersler' gives it a distinct identity from siblings like get_course_prerequisites and get_course_info, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

'For a specific METU course' implies the usage context — an agent can infer this applies when a concrete course is identified rather than a whole program or department. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling (e.g., list_program_courses, get_course_prerequisites) to prefer instead.

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