get_course_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are truncated at 500 characters, empty fields are omitted, and files stored outside the LMS cannot be read by this tool. It does not mention freshness, pagination, or size limits on the material list.

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?

Five short lines, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then parameter sourcing, then the sibling routing. Every line carries information, though the truncation note reads slightly ambiguously (whether it applies to the course description or the whole payload).

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?

There is no output schema, but the description outlines the return shape (sections with activities, files, external links), the truncation and empty-field rules, and the unreadable-file case. Combined with annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 0% and the single course_id parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate; it does so by stating that course_id comes from list_courses. It adds the essential provenance but no format, range, or invalid-id behavior.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Menampilkan isi mata kuliah per bagian') and enumerates the returned content types (aktivitas, file, link luar), which cleanly separates it from siblings like read_file_text or get_file_link.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent where the required id comes from ('Pakai id dari list_courses') and routes downstream steps: use read_file_text for readable files, and get_file_link for files with stored_outside_lms. The when-to-use and when-not-to-use path is fully specified.

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