gradescope_list_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description enriches this by specifying that results are grouped by semester, that course IDs are included, and that environment variables are required — useful operational context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys scope (all Gradescope courses), grouping (by semester), purpose (course IDs for assignments), and prerequisites (env vars). No filler or redundancy.

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 operation, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how results are organized, why the course IDs matter, and what setup is needed. No output schema exists, so no return-value details are required, and nothing else seems 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 zero parameters in the input schema, so the description correctly omits parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter semantics to add.

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 identifies the tool as listing all Gradescope courses, grouped by semester, with course IDs. It explicitly references the sibling tool gradescope_list_assignments for using those IDs, distinguishing it from other platform course listers like moodle_list_courses or ed_list_courses.

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 states the tool's purpose (providing course IDs for gradescope_list_assignments) and prerequisites (GRADESCOPE_EMAIL/GRADESCOPE_PASSWORD env vars), giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the platform name 'Gradescope' disambiguates from sibling tools on other platforms.

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