get_course_outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new pieces of context: that file contents are excluded, and that the output is classified 'Purdue Sensitive data', which signals handling expectations. It says nothing about pagination or size limits for large courses.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the substantive scoping information. The trailing fragment 'Purdue Sensitive data.' is terse but carries real signal rather than padding.

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 return-format explanation is rightly omitted, and the annotations cover safety. The gap is the completely undocumented course_id and the absence of any guidance on sourcing that identifier, which for a single-param tool is the main thing an agent could get wrong.

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?

There is one required parameter, course_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema offers no explanation of it. The description only implies the ID selects 'one course' and does not say where the value comes from (presumably list_courses) or whether it is the same ID used by sibling tools.

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 names a specific resource (module and topic titles) and scope (one course), which is enough to tell it apart from siblings like list_courses or list_assignments. It stops short of an explicit verb such as 'retrieve', but the noun phrase is unambiguous about what comes back.

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?

There is a partial negative scope statement ('no file contents') that hints at what the tool will not return, but no alternative tool is named for fetching content. Nothing says when to prefer this over list_courses for navigating a course structure.

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