learnus_list_videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it names the returned fields (canonical IDs, audience applicability, dual deadlines) and explicitly disclaims attendance/progress semantics, though it says nothing about the refresh cache behavior or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the exclusion last. Every clause carries either scope, trigger, or routing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned content, and it covers trigger, scope, and the nearest confusable sibling. Nothing material for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (courseId, refresh) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'in one course' reinforces courseId scoping but adds no format, ID-source, or refresh guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Lists) and resource (VOD activities in one course) and enumerates the distinguishing payload (canonical IDs, audience applicability, separate availability/instructional deadlines). An agent can separate it from learnus_list_activities and learnus_list_files without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('user asks what course videos exist or for video metadata in a known course') plus a when-not with two named alternatives (learnus_get_video_attendance, learnus_get_learning_overview). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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