skool_lessons_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Uses the Next.js classroom data route with course parameter,' which is an implementation detail but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, auth requirements, or return format. For a list tool, stating that it retrieves data without mutations would be expected but is absent.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the second sentence about the Next.js route is arguably unnecessary for an AI agent and may be technical noise. It doesn't waste words, but the second sentence could be trimmed for greater clarity. Still, it is appropriately concise overall.

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 low complexity (2 params, simple list operation) and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it operates on. However, with no output schema and no mention of return value or behavior beyond the name, some information is left implicit. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully described in the input schema. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, merely restating that a course parameter is used. Since schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List lessons/modules in a specific course,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like skool_courses_list (lists courses) and skool_posts_list (lists posts). The mention of 'specific course' makes the target resource 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like skool_courses_list or any prerequisites (e.g., needing a courseSlug obtained from skool_courses_list). The only usage hint is that it requires a course parameter, which is already in the schema. There is no explicit when/when-not wording.

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