uplus_list_courses

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at an auth dependency ('signed-in account') but says nothing about behavior when not signed in, pagination, or result limits, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that earns its place with no redundancy; the scope constraint is stated up front.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not flagging the login prerequisite explicitly, which matters given sibling auth tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline the schema imposes no semantic burden and the description is not expected to explain arguments.

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 ('List') and resource ('courses') with scope ('attached to the signed-in account'), so an agent can identify it distinctly from list siblings like uplus_list_homeworks and uplus_list_experiments. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Attached to the signed-in account' implies a login prerequisite and read-only listing intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of uplus_check_login/uplus_login ordering, and no exclusion of alternatives. Usage is only implied.

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