list_grading_courses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: results are permission-filtered to grading-eligible courses. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what include_concluded does, so the disclosure is partial.

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 tight clause with no filler, and the most important qualifier (grading permission) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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 not be described, and the tool is a simple read-only listing. The remaining gap is the undocumented include_concluded parameter and the absence of any workflow guidance, which leaves it only minimally complete.

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 sole parameter include_concluded (default false) is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets no explanation of what a 'concluded' course is or why it would be included.

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 identifies the exact resource returned: courses where the caller is a teacher/TA with grading permission. That scope distinction is meaningful, though it is a noun phrase with no verb and does not contrast itself with siblings like list_assignments or whoami.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or workflow position (e.g., 'call this first to get course IDs for list_assignments'). Usage is only inferable from the name.

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