Get Course Structure

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns the complete tree in one call, includes summary stats, and is explicitly designed to avoid N+1 round-trips. It does not detail pagination, payload size, or return field specifics, but the behavior is meaningfully disclosed.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds practical guidance about when the tool is valuable. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only aggregation tool, the description provides enough information to understand the output shape and purpose: a one-call module tree with summary stats. The lack of an output schema and the absence of explicit sibling exclusions leave some room for ambiguity, but overall the context is solid.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full module → items tree for a course in a single call, with summary stats.' This clearly separates it from finer-grained siblings like list_modules or list_module_items by emphasizing the full tree and single-call scope.

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 gives a clear usage condition: use this when the agent needs to reason over the whole course shape, and explains why it is preferable ('Avoids N+1 round-trips'). It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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