Get My Courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add context beyond safety. It adds the key behavioral scope: only active courses are returned and the caller is the authenticated student. However, it does not mention pagination, response shape, or any state or errors that might arise, so it is not fully transparent.

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 a single front-loaded sentence: 'List active courses for the authenticated student.' Every word earns its place, the verb comes first, and the scope is given without filler or repetition.

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 that this is a simple zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It states the action, the resource, the active filter, and the user scope. A mention of pagination or the shape of the returned course list could add information, but it is not essential for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema confirms no properties, so the description carries no parameter burden. Per the rules, an empty parameter set can justify the baseline 4, and the description does not unnecessarily invent or obscure any parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('courses'), and two scope qualifiers ('active', 'for the authenticated student'). This allows an agent to understand exactly what is returned and to distinguish this from siblings like list_courses or get_course, which cover broader or single-resource lookups.

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 phrase 'for the authenticated student' implicitly establishes when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as list_courses or how it relates to other 'my_*' endpoints. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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