Get Courses

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world traits. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: it is a network fetch that replaces the current course cache, it fails loudly instead of misclassifying when the semester is ambiguous, and the training scope is deliberately conservative. Auth/rate-limit behavior is still unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the '[network]' tag and the core action, then four sentences that each carry distinct information (scope semantics, cache replacement, failure mode, fallback). Dense but every sentence earns its place; no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single-parameter surface is fully covered. The failure mode and cache-replacement side effect are disclosed, leaving only minor gaps such as authentication or rate-limit expectations for a network call.

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 100% and the single enum is documented, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the classification logic behind each scope (term name/ID/date detection, Canvas available/completed enrollment history, conservative training classification), adding real meaning beyond the terse schema strings.

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 (fetch fresh) and resource (e-Class course list), and breaks the result set into three named scopes with distinct contents. It implicitly distinguishes itself from eclass_get_courses_cached by noting that it replaces the current cache, but never names that sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a clean 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?

Gives explicit conditions for choosing each scope (current = this semester's regular courses; all = full Canvas enrollment history; training = prevention/mandatory education) and a concrete fallback: if the semester cannot be determined, use scope=all rather than mislabeling. It stops short of pointing to the cached alternative tool, so no explicit when-not.

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