get_syllabus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the tool accesses public information and can retrieve non-registered courses, implying read-only behavior and no special authentication. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify data, lacks side effects, or require permissions. More explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, then explains the two distinct scenarios with separate parameters. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the two use cases and prerequisite information (search_courses for non-registered). It could briefly mention the output format but is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds contextual meaning by specifying the use cases for each parameter (idnumber for registered courses, syllabusUrl for non-registered courses). This goes beyond the schema descriptions and helps the agent select the correct parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a syllabus from UTAS, specifies public info accessible for non-registered courses, and distinguishes between registered (idnumber only) and non-registered (syllabusUrl) cases. It also references sibling tool search_courses, differentiating its usage.

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 provides clear context on when to use idnumber vs. syllabusUrl based on registration status. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or list alternatives beyond referencing search_courses, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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