View Course Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the fallback behavior for hosts without MCP Apps support and the additional UI resource linkage, which are behavioral traits not captured by annotations. It doesn't describe return format details, but given the annotations and the explicit reference to get_course_structure's payload, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first states the primary function, the second explains the fallback behavior and relationship to get_course_structure. No wasted words.

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 (3 params, no output schema), the description is complete enough: it explains the interactive UI feature, the fallback, and the relationship to a sibling tool. It doesn't detail the JSON payload structure, but since it explicitly says it's the same as get_course_structure, that reference covers completeness. The annotations provide safety context.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (course_id, include_published_only, include_content_details) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 provides an interactive tree view of a course's modules and items, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_course_structure by noting it returns the same payload plus an MCP Apps UI resource. The verb 'view' and resource 'course structure' are specific and unambiguous.

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 this tool: when an interactive tree view is desired, and notes that hosts without MCP Apps support fall back to the JSON payload, which is the same as get_course_structure. This provides clear context and implicitly contrasts with the alternative get_course_structure, which is a sibling tool.

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