list-piazza-courses

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the courses are 'configured' and 'accessible to the user,' which clarifies the tool's scope and permission implications. It does not repeat annotation data and introduces no contradictions. Given the richness of annotations, this is a solid supplement.

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 with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by a concise and actionable hint about how to use the result. It earns its place with both purpose and usage guidance, and nothing is redundant or verbose.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with a rich output schema (signal indicates output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and usage. The output schema handles return-value details, and annotations handle safety traits. The description adds the 'configured' and 'accessible' context and ties the output to downstream tools. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the description has no parameter burden. The rubric sets a baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description does mention the output field 'course_id,' which clarifies what the tool returns, even though it is not a parameter. This is appropriate given the empty 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 action ('List') and the resource ('configured Piazza courses accessible to the user'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on courses rather than posts, and it explains the relationship to other tools ('Use a returned course_id with the other Piazza tools'). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a clear usage hint: 'Use a returned course_id with the other Piazza tools.' This implies the tool is a prerequisite for the other Piazza tools and should be called first to obtain a course_id. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the sibling names (e.g., list-piazza-posts) make the domain distinction obvious. Missing explicit exclusions but contextual guidance is strong.

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