get-course-overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'in één call' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if courseId is invalid. No side effects or destructive behaviors are mentioned, but the lack of detail is a gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing the components in a clearer way).

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description lists included components but does not specify the structure or format of the return. It is adequate but not thoroughly complete.

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% with a description for the only parameter (courseId: 'Het ID van het vak'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 the verb 'opvragen' (retrieve) and the resource 'compleet overzicht van één vak'. It lists specific components (modules, pages, assignments, announcements, grades) and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual components.

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 use when a comprehensive overview is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for specific components like announcements). No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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