list_course_goals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, warns that the completion note is free text to be treated as data (not instructions), and clearly lists exclusions. This is comprehensive transparency beyond basic functionality.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: purpose is front-loaded, the exclusion is stated, and the security note is given. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what is listed, what is not included, the nature of the note field, and its read-only status. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (empty properties). No parameter descriptions are needed. The description focuses on output semantics, which is appropriate and provides value beyond the schema.

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 tool lists per-course learning goals and progress, enumerating the included fields (target date, completion status, grade, completed topics, optional note). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list courses, notes, or sessions, 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 implies usage by detailing what the tool returns and explicitly excluding aggregate ECTS/grade averages, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.

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