Get course editors

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds a useful access requirement: edit rights on the course. It also clarifies that roles are included in the response. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but the read-only nature is well covered by annotations and the output schema.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, includes the key access caveat, and says what the response contains (users and roles). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential requirements. It could additionally point to add_course_editor/remove_course_editor for modifying editors, but that is not necessary for correctly invoking this tool.

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?

The schema has one parameter, course_id, with 100% description coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about course_id beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 and resource: 'List the users who can edit a course, with their roles.' This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling mutators like add_course_editor and remove_course_editor. There is no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 gives a clear precondition: 'Requires edit rights on that course.' However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_course_editor or remove_course_editor. The usage context is implied rather than stated with exclusions or alternative routing.

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