learningsuite_list_published_courses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists published courses, but does not reveal any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, permissions, or whether the result is a full list or subject to limits. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it is minimal and does not add extra value beyond the tool name.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but has gaps. It does not mention whether the list is ordered, whether archived courses are included, or what the response structure looks like. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description could provide more context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed, and it does not need to explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema shows.

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 'Get all published courses' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (all published courses), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools that handle members, groups, bundles, etc. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list-type tools like 'list_bundles' or 'list_members', and it largely paraphrases the tool name without adding new context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparison to other list tools. Since the description only states what the tool does, usage context is entirely implied.

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