list_materials

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals output structure (name, discipline, date added, teacher, URL types), default semester behavior, and parameter effects. Though it doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only, the verb 'list' implies no side effects, and the added details provide good 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?

The description is three sentences without fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds specific value (output fields, defaults, parameter semantics). It is concise and well-structured.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, output fields, defaults, and parameter meanings. No critical information is missing, and the low complexity makes this description complete.

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 parameters have only integer/null types with no descriptions, while the description fully explains both: semester with an example ID and subject_id as a discipline filter. It also clarifies that they are optional and default to current semester, adding meaning far 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 uses a specific verb 'list' and clearly identifies the resource as 'learning materials available to the student'. It enumerates output fields and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like download_material by focusing on listing rather than fetching a specific file.

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 clarifies that all filters are optional and default to the current semester, giving context for typical usage. It explains each filter's purpose but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, though the context implies it is the first step before downloading.

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