lms_list_materials

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a read-only listing operation returning all materials, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or permission requirements, though the output schema may cover return structure.

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 focused sentence: action, resource, and scope are front-loaded, and parenthetical examples clarify item types without adding waste.

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 one-parameter listing tool, the description covers what is returned and the target course, and the output schema can provide return-field details. It is complete enough for invocation, though it assumes course_id is obtained elsewhere.

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 coverage is 0% and the only parameter is a bare 'course_id' integer. The description partially compensates by linking the tool's purpose to 'a specific course,' letting the agent infer that course_id identifies the target course. It does not name course_id explicitly or add format/example details.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('educational material items'), with examples of item types and a clear scope ('for a specific course'). It is readily distinguished from sibling tools that list courses, assignments, or deadlines.

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 phrase 'for a specific course' clearly establishes the context for using this tool: retrieve materials for one course. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it over the siblings.

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