List courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the absence of a side-effect warning is acceptable. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by indicating that results are scoped to the authenticated account and that a field reports edit permissions. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently lists the returned attributes. There is no filler or redundancy; every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 the presence of an output schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers the essential scoping detail an agent needs: the courses are those visible to the authenticated account. It does not mention pagination or explicitly contrast with list_contests, but for a simple read-only listing tool, those omissions are minor.

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 only parameter, response_format, is optional and has 100% schema coverage with an enum, default, and description. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but none is needed because the schema fully documents it. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ('List Repovive courses') and limits scope to those visible to the authenticated account. It enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's function unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_contests, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'visible to the authenticated account' implies when this tool is appropriate: when the agent needs courses accessible to the current user. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or any exclusions. The guidance remains implicit rather than direct.

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