list_courses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'the user's enrolled' usefully discloses that results are implicitly scoped to the authenticated user rather than all courses. However, it does not state whether archived/completed courses are included or how many results are returned, and read-only status is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical field list is compact and informative rather than redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and with no parameters there is little else to specify. The only gap is scope ambiguity about which enrollments count (active vs. completed), which slightly matters for a 'user's courses' list.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing parameter-related and instead clarifies the return contents, which is the only useful semantic detail available.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the user's enrolled iSpace courses') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, progress). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_assignments or course_contents, though the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers it should call this when it needs the user's course roster. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no mention of the sibling tools (course_contents, list_assignments) that operate on a single course.

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