list_materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it 'retrieves' a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any other behavioral traits such as permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether it is destructive. For a tool with no annotations, this disclosure is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with three short sections: overall purpose, args, and returns. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is clear and easy to parse. There is no extraneous information.

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 tool with one parameter and a read operation, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions that output is a 'list of lecture materials,' but since an output schema exists (context signal), the burden on the description for return values is reduced. However, it lacks context on what materials are included or how to interpret results. Overall, it is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description only restates 'course_id' as 'コースの識別子' (course identifier), adding no meaningful semantic value beyond the parameter name. This does not help an agent understand expected format or constraints.

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 clearly states it retrieves a list of lecture materials for a specified course, using a specific verb ('取得する') and resource ('講義資料一覧'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'download_material' (download) and 'list_assignments' (assignments), making its purpose 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?

The description indicates the tool requires a course_id, implying use when you have a course and need materials. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_assignments' or 'list_announcements', nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions.

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