plms_list_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a workflow hint (returned IDs feed other tools) but says nothing about the include_past behavior or the shape of the returned cards.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and add a follow-up routing hint. Nothing is wasted or padded.

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 description is complete enough for a simple read-only listing tool. The only gap is the undocumented include_past parameter, which slightly under-specifies the call surface.

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% and the single parameter include_past is never mentioned in the description. The tool's own text gives no indication that the returned set can be widened to past enrollments, leaving the agent to infer it from the bare boolean name.

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 and resource — 'List the current user's enrolled course cards' — scoped clearly to the current user. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like plms_list_assignments or plms_search, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

'Use returned course IDs for other tools' implies this is a discovery/entry-point tool that feeds downstream calls, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as plms_search or other listing tools.

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