Browse Course Catalogue

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does establish that the search spans all faculties and is restricted to elective/selective course types, which is meaningful behavioral scope, but it says nothing about ordering, truncation behavior, or the fact that this is a passive read that changes no state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical gloss of "volitelné - category C" is the one added detail and it earns its place by disambiguating a term an agent would otherwise not know.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained and all three parameters are documented in the schema. Still, for a tool whose nearest neighbours are get_enrolled_courses and get_course_details, the description should have made the catalogue-vs-enrolled distinction explicit; that omission is the main completeness gap.

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 query, faculty, and limit with examples, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the domain context that results are elective/selective courses reachable across all faculties; it adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb pair ("search and discover") and a specific resource scope (elective category C / volitelné and selective courses across all faculties). It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, but it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings such as get_enrolled_courses or get_course_details, so an agent must infer that this is catalogue discovery rather than enrolled-course listing.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing as discovery of elective and selective courses, which tells an agent roughly when this tool is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no pointer to alternatives (e.g. use get_course_details for a specific course, get_enrolled_courses for what the student already takes), leaving the routing decision to inference.

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