Get Course Content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation that returns a nested TOC. However, it lacks details about any access requirements, pagination, or whether only published content is returned. This is adequate for a simple list tool but could be more transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and output format, and the second provides example use cases. Every word adds value.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no nested objects, and clear sibling tools), the description is complete. It explains the output (nested table of contents) and gives concrete examples. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 schema already provides a high-coverage description for the only parameter (courseId as 'The course org unit (ou) ID from list_courses'). The description adds context by implying the parameter identifies the course, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'List the content modules and materials... for a course as a nested table of contents.' It provides specific verb ('list') and resource ('content modules and materials'), and the title 'Get Course Content' reinforces this. The examples delineate it from siblings like get_announcements or get_grades.

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 includes example queries ('What materials are in week 3?', 'Where are the lecture slides?') that help the agent understand when to use this tool. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on content structure. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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