list_scorms

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral scope beyond that: launching and tracking SCORM attempts are unsupported, and this tool provides read-only coverage only.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and follows with the important limitation.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it explicitly does not support.

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%, and course_ids is already documented as one or more course ids to list SCORM packages for. The description reinforces the 'one or more courses' scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: list SCORM packaged-content activities across courses. It clearly distinguishes SCORM activities from the many other activity-listing siblings such as list_h5p_activities and list_lessons by naming the content type.

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 gives a clear usage context: list SCORM packages for one or more courses. It also explicitly states when the tool is not applicable by ruling out launching or tracking SCORM attempts, though it does not name an alternative tool for those operations.

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