find_relevant_materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'ranked by relevance' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what types of content are returned, authentication needs, or any side effects. Significant gaps remain.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and filtering criteria. No wasted words, but brevity comes at the cost of missing details.

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 no output schema and only one parameter, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of materials, rankings). It does not mention return format, types of content, or how relevance is determined, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'relevant to a specific assignment' but does not explain the 'assignid' parameter (its meaning, format, or source). The schema shows it's an integer but no further guidance.

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 the verb 'find', specifies the resource 'course content and search results', and adds context 'relevant to a specific assignment, ranked by relevance'. This differentiates it from sibling tool 'search_course_materials' which likely lacks the assignment-specific relevance ranking.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, no exclusions mentioned. The description implies use for finding assignment-related materials but does not explain when not to use or mention alternative tools like 'search_course_materials'.

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