list_reference_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well for pagination and data completeness: it explains continuing on next_cursor even with an empty page when has_more=true, preserving partial/warnings and metadata_state, and not claiming exhaustive teacher-course coverage. However, it does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, permissions, 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with purpose, then parameter rules, pagination behavior, and scope limitations. Every clause carries operational value, especially the continuation and completeness caveats.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior; it names key fields such as course_type, course_id, reference.resources.v1, applied_filters, has_more, next_cursor, partial/warnings, and metadata_state. It also explains the course_directory_no_lessons caveat and warns that total is unknown, which is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 coverage is 71%, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: query is course name only with exact/prefix, author is exact, the two are ANDed with at least one required, and cursor continuation must preserve all filters. It does not clarify the required source and resource_type enums, though those are largely self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb and resource: locate Dedao courses that have personal notes by course name/teacher, without a knowledge base. It also distinguishes the tool from list_notes and from full-site course listing or in-course semantic search, so an agent can identify its role.

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?

It explicitly specifies that query and author are combined with AND and at least one is required, and that match_mode only affects the course name while author is exact. It also explains the downstream use of returned course_type+course_id to filter list_notes and states what the tool is not for.

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