List downloadable files in a course

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

The annotations already provide readOnly and openWorld hints, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it walks the course, includes embedded and linked documents, and returns metadata rather than file bytes. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but given the annotations this is sufficient.

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 a clear action verb and concrete enumerations. It avoids boilerplate and every clause adds useful detail about scope or return value.

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?

With no output schema provided, the description names the returned fields meaningfully (name, type, size, contentId). It could mention pagination/limits or clarify that only readable items are returned, but the core behavior is sufficiently complete for a simple list operation.

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 JSON schema already describes the parameters, including the meaning of deep and maxNodes. The description adds no parameter-specific instructions, but full schema coverage makes that acceptable.

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 clearly identifies the action: it walks a course and lists every readable document. It enumerates the exact item types covered (attached files, embedded files, and Google Docs/Slides links) and states the returned fields, making the tool's role unmistakable and distinct from generic list-content or course-structure tools.

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 implies when to use the tool by saying it lists files and returns contentId for fetching, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it. This is adequate but not actively helpful for routing.

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