List Courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default path is served without hitting Piazza, and refresh=true forces a reload from the remote source. It does not mention cache staleness windows or latency tradeoffs.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary behavior and returned fields come first, followed by downstream usage and the optional flag, which is the right front-loading order.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, returned content, identifier handoff to other tools, and refresh semantics. Only minor operational details (whether courses are paginated, how authoritative the cached list is) are absent.

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 0% for the single optional parameter, but the description compensates by explaining that refresh=true triggers a reload from Piazza, which implies the default (false) serves cached data. That is the essential semantic an agent needs for the only parameter.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus a bounded resource ("the user's Piazza courses") and an enumeration of the fields returned (ID, course number, term, role, active status, post folders). It is clearly a bulk-listing tool rather than a per-course lookup, but it never names or contrasts with the closest sibling, get_course_info, so the differentiation is only implied.

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?

"Other tools accept the ID, the course number, or part of the name" effectively explains this tool's role as the identifier-discovery step, and "Set refresh=true to reload from Piazza" gives a concrete condition for using the option. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, but the usage context is clear.

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