Get Course Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context about the single-call nature and summary stats, which helps set expectations. However, it does not disclose details about the return format, potential performance costs, or any quirks. Since annotations cover the read-only aspect, the extra context is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and distinct value proposition. No wasted words. The structure is clear: what it does, when to use it, and why it's beneficial. Every word 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of annotations and a complete schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role and when to invoke it. It doesn't explain the output format, but the summary stats and tree structure are implied. It would benefit from noting any limits (e.g., course size) but overall is adequate.

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%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The description doesn't add extra meaning to parameters beyond what's in the schema, but it does imply that course_id is the key input and that include_published_only and include_content_details are optional filters. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema already documents the parameters well.

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 → items tree for a course with summary stats, using specific and concise language. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_modules or list_module_items by emphasizing a single-call bulk retrieval, and from view_course_structure by hinting at a different scope (whole tree vs possibly individual module view).

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 mentions when to use it: 'when an agent needs to reason over the whole course shape' and notes the benefit of avoiding N+1 round-trips. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer that granular queries should use other tools. Lacks explicit exclusions but provides solid guidance.

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