get_thesis_courses

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It reveals the tool is a read operation ('Retrieve') but gives no details on pagination, result limits, error conditions, authentication needs, or what 'all' means in practice. The low effort of simply saying 'retrieve all' does little to disclose nontrivial behavior.

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, clear sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are immediately understandable.

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 presence of an output schema covers return values, and the simple 2-parameter read operation is moderately self-explanatory. However, the lack of usage guidance, sibling differentiation, and any behavioral caveats leaves an agent with important gaps when deciding when to call this tool and what to expect for edge cases.

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 must compensate. It maps 'department' and 'semester term' to the two parameters, but does not explain expected formats, allowed values, or how they combine to filter results. The description adds only minimal meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all thesis work courses'), scoped by department and semester term. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_program_courses, leaving some ambiguity about what distinguishes a 'thesis work course' from other course types.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings, prerequisites, or any conditions that would make this tool the right choice over list_program_courses or other course retrieval tools.

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