Get Course Overview

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

No annotations are present, and the description only lists what data is returned without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if it triggers network requests, performance implications, or error handling. The refresh and file_max_depth parameters are not explained.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's output. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more concise by removing 'remote learning routes' if it's not a standard term, but overall it is well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context on parameter behavior, error conditions, and use cases. Given the tool aggregates many sub-resources, agents would benefit from knowing that it may be slow or require specific permissions. The description is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 input schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description adds no meaning to the parameters; it does not explain the purpose of 'refresh', 'file_max_depth', or the 'course' identifier. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without crucial usage 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 clearly states that the tool returns a combined view of a course, listing multiple components like sections, announcements, assignments, files, etc. This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage for obtaining a summary of multiple course components, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over the specific sibling tools (e.g., get_course_announcements). No when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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