Get Interactive Syllabus

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden: it does state what the tool returns, but it omits authentication requirements, behavior when a course has no interactive syllabus, and whether the course must be enrolled. An output schema exists, so the omission of return-value detail is acceptable. The gaps around permissions and failure modes still matter for a read tool on a session-authenticated system.

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 tool definition is a single tightly written sentence. It leads with the action and resource, then lists the concrete payload contents. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the definition need not describe return values. It is still thin on whether the tool requires authentication, how it behaves for a course without a syllabus, and whether the tool uses the optional faculty or semester parameters for disambiguation. It is adequate overall but not complete for a multi-parameter, session-authenticated lookup.

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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description adds nothing beyond the schema. It does not mention the optional faculty or semester parameters, nor does it explain how they affect the lookup.

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 ('Fetch') plus a precise resource ('interactive syllabus / interaktivní osnova') and enumerates the content it returns: a week-by-week topic outline, homework assignments, reading tasks, and linked lecture resources. This clearly distinguishes it from tools such as get_course_details or list_study_materials. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, however.

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 usage is only implied by the described content, and the description gives no explicit instruction on when to choose this tool over get_course_details, list_study_materials, or browse_course_catalogue. There are also no stated prerequisites (for example, enrollment or authentication via set_session_cookies, which a sibling tool provides).

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