View Course Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description agrees (view = read, no contradiction). Beyond annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the payload is identical to get_course_structure, the tool conditionally returns a UI resource link, and hosts without MCP Apps support get a JSON fallback. This environment-dependent dual-mode behavior is exactly the kind of context an agent needs and could not infer from annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the two sentences that follow add essential differentiation and fallback behavior. There is minor redundancy ('same payload as get_course_structure' appears both in sentence two and in the parenthetical of sentence three), but no filler or 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 no output schema, the description's explicit statement that the payload equals get_course_structure's payload is valuable grounding. The dual-mode behavior (UI link vs JSON fallback) is fully disclosed, and the read-only nature is confirmed by annotations. For a 3-parameter view tool, this is nearly complete – the only minor gap is describing what the unified payload contains beyond 'modules and items.'

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 fully documents course_id, include_published_only, and include_content_details. Per baseline, the description need not repeat parameter details. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but at full coverage the schema carries the burden, so a 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+resource pair ('view a course's modules and items') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling get_course_structure by naming it and explaining exactly what this tool adds (an interactive tree UI plus the same payload). An agent can distinguish it from related tools like list_modules, get_module, and get_course_structure without opening any schemas.

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 names the alternative (get_course_structure) and makes the relationship explicit: this tool returns the identical payload plus an MCP Apps UI link. It also discloses the fallback behavior for hosts lacking MCP Apps support. What's missing is an explicit directive such as 'use this when the host supports MCP Apps, otherwise use get_course_structure directly' – the when-to-use is implied rather than stated.

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