get_subject_and_course_codes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns a complete list of all codes with type information, warns about large data volume and potential loading time ('Stor datamängd, kan ta tid att ladda'), and specifies the return format. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, use cases, returns, notes), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The Swedish text is efficient without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good completeness: clear purpose, usage guidelines, return format, and performance warning. However, it could benefit from specifying exact return structure (e.g., array format) and any data freshness considerations.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and behavior, which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 verb 'Hämta' (Get) and the resource 'alla tillgängliga ämnes- och kurskoder' (all available subject and course codes). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it retrieves ALL codes without filtering, unlike search/filter tools in the sibling list that require parameters for specific queries.

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 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' (USE CASES) section explicitly lists three scenarios: exploring the entire course offering, finding correct codes for searching, and building overviews. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_courses or search_subjects that require specific parameters.

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