List Study Materials

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb "List" reliably signals a non-destructive read, but nothing is said about permissions, whether folders are returned recursively, or how large listings behave. The implied read-only nature prevents a lower score, but the description stops well short of full transparency.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted clauses. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the usage and behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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 no explanation, and the tool itself is a simple two-parameter listing. However, for a tool sitting beside read_study_material, the definition leaves the agent to guess the browse-then-read workflow and any access constraints.

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%, with course_code and folder_path both documented including an example and a default. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameter documentation applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("files and folders in the course study materials repository"), giving the agent an immediate picture of a browsing operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, read_study_material, but the list-vs-read distinction is inferable from the wording.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool rather than read_study_material, nor any mention of prerequisites such as enrollment or authentication. The agent must infer that listing precedes reading from the verb alone, which is a real gap given how similar the two siblings are.

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