List content in a course folder

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the one-level scoping. It does not describe the response format or pagination, but given the annotations, this does not go beyond what is expected.

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 sentences long: first states the core function, second gives the directive about using bb_browse_course. No wasted words, and the key detail is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the combination of the description and annotations is sufficient for correct invocation. It defines the operation, the target scoping, the alternative to prefer, and the parameters are all described in the schema. There are no gaps needed to call the tool correctly.

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 already has descriptions for courseId and contentId (67% coverage). The description adds the phrase 'immediate children' to clarify the level of listing, but it doesn't explain the limit parameter at all, which remains entirely described by the schema's min/max. The added value over the schema is modest.

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 ('Lists') and a specific resource ('immediate children of a course folder or lesson, or the top level of the course'), and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool bb_browse_course by naming it. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from a similar tool.

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?

It provides an explicit usage rule: 'Prefer bb_browse_course unless you specifically want one level.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool instead of the sibling, which is exactly the kind of guidance that removes ambiguity.

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