plms_list_notices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: results are titles only (not bodies) and are paginated, which prevents an agent from expecting full content in one call.

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 compact sentence with the primary action and scope front-loaded, followed by the omission rule and the body caveat. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required; the description appropriately focuses on scope and the titles-vs-bodies distinction. The only shortfall is the unelaborated page parameter, which is minor for a two-parameter read tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains course_id's optionality and its site-wide semantics, but says nothing about the page parameter beyond the generic word 'pagination' (no indication of page size or ordering), leaving one of two parameters weakly specified.

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 (course announcement titles) plus scope (with pagination, site-wide when course_id omitted). It also implicitly differentiates from plms_get_notice by noting that bodies must be read separately, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 a clear usage condition: omit course_id to get site-wide notices instead of course-scoped ones. It also signals that this tool is for titles and that body retrieval belongs elsewhere, but it does not name plms_get_notice as the alternative, leaving a small inference step.

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