list_courses

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'Read-only — does not modify any data', which is a key safety attribute. It also clarifies the scope to the currently active study program, adding context beyond a bare list call. It does not mention edge cases like empty results or program switching, but for a read-only list tool this is adequate.

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?

Two compact sentences with the purpose first, followed by a safety note. Every word is meaningful, no redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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, output schema present), the description is complete. It specifies what is listed, the scope, and the read-only nature. The sibling tool names further contextualize when to choose this tool. No additional information is needed.

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, so there is no parameter schema to describe. The description compensates by listing the fields returned (semester, code, color, etc.), giving semantic context about the output. Baseline 4 applies for tools with no parameters.

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 'Lists' and the resource 'all courses of the currently active study program', with a specific field list. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_notes' and 'list_course_goals', which target different entity types.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool (when listing courses of the active program) and implicitly differentiates from siblings by naming the resource type. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would be a 5, but the context is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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