list_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotence need no restatement. The description adds that course IDs are returned, which the annotations do not cover, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what an empty result means.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the status legend; no filler. The formatting is slightly terse and the default-value fact is orphaned outside the sentence structure, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema is simple, but at 0% schema coverage the description should state the default, the sort order, and roughly what a course record contains. Instead it omits the default entirely and leaves return shape to inference.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it only partially does: it glosses the status values but never explains what 'all' returns or that omitting the parameter defaults to inprogress, which is the key behavior for a zero-required-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Menampilkan mata kuliah pengguna beserta id-nya' = display the user's courses along with their IDs), so the agent knows it lists courses with identifiers. It does not name or contrast with any sibling tool, but none of the siblings list courses, so confusion risk is low.

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?

The description enumerates the status values with short glosses (inprogress=ongoing, past=completed, future=upcoming, all), which implies when to use each filter. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over fetching materials or deadlines, and no guidance that the default is inprogress.

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