Audit Course Links

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: it performs structural checks only (no outbound HTTP requests), requires instructor permissions, and explains that quizzes are opt-in due to extra API calls. It doesn't contradict annotations and adds behavioral details beyond them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then details the optional quizzes behavior, and ends with constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers what is scanned, the optional quizzes behavior, the nature of findings (cross-course references, empty/malformed URLs), constraints (no HTTP requests, permissions), and the rationale for opt-in quizzes. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse it.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the default behavior (four content types) and the implications of including quizzes (extra API calls, silent breakage for students). This goes beyond the schema's basic enum listing.

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The description clearly states the tool scans a course's content for broken or outdated links and images, listing specific content types and the optional quizzes inclusion. It distinguishes itself from siblings like audit_course_accessibility and check_course_setup by focusing on link integrity and structural checks.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool (to find broken links, especially cross-course references after imports) and when not to (no outbound HTTP requests, structural checks only). It also notes the opt-in nature of quizzes and the permission requirement, providing clear context for selection.

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