list_teachers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields (names and emails), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions/privacy constraints on student-teacher data, result ordering, or pagination.

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 purpose line is front-loaded and waste-free, and the Args block is terse. The block is slightly redundant with the schema, but with 0% schema coverage it earns its place.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema list tool this is close to complete: the agent knows what it returns and where the id comes from. Only pagination/ordering behavior and any access constraints are absent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names the single parameter and tells the agent where the value comes from (list_courses), which is the key semantic an agent needs. It stops short of format/validation details, but the core meaning is added.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (teachers), plus the payload returned (names and emails) and its scope (for a course). It is distinguishable from list_students by resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from that sibling or from get_course.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the roster tool for a course, and the arg note points the agent to list_courses to obtain the required id. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_students/get_course or of any prerequisite conditions beyond the id source.

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