list_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read/list operation, but does not explicitly state safety (read-only) characteristics, potential side effects, or response format. The optional include_students behavior is mentioned, which adds some transparency, but it is already evident from the schema. This is an adequate but not enriched disclosure.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word earns its place. The optional clause adds important nuance without bloating the text.

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 simple list tool with only 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It clearly states what the tool returns (sections) and the optional enrollments. While it lacks details on pagination or response structure, these are less critical for a basic list use case, making the description adequately complete.

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 already provides full descriptions of both parameters (course_id and include_students), so coverage is 100%. The description merely reiterates the include_students option without adding new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sections in a course'), and it distinguishes from siblings like list_students or list_courses by focusing on sections. The optional include_students detail adds useful specificity without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools such as list_students or list_courses. The intended context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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