get_course_structure

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is lighter. It adds the behavioral trait of being a single, efficient call avoiding N+1 round-trips, which is useful. However, it doesn't elaborate on other behaviors like caching or response size.

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 concise with two well-structured sentences. Every word serves a purpose: stating the main functionality, the return value, and the use case. No extraneous information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides enough context by stating it returns a 'full module → items tree with summary stats.' This is sufficient for understanding the tool's value, though it could optionally describe the tree structure more explicitly. For a read-only tool with complete parameter documentation, this is quite complete.

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 100%, with each parameter having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool's description does not add any additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema, so a 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 clearly states the tool returns the full module-to-items tree for a course in a single call, with summary stats. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_modules or list_module_items by explicitly avoiding N+1 round-trips, making its purpose specific and valuable.

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 provides clear context by stating the tool should be used 'when an agent needs to reason over the whole course shape.' While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the description implies that for partial data, other tools would be more appropriate.

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