study_live_resources

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description meaningfully supplements them by disclosing the async job_id pattern and the plugin-owned login dependency. It does not contradict the annotations and covers behavior they cannot express.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, with the core action first and the job_id/polling detail immediately after. The trailing coverage-gap sentence is a bit of an outlier but still earns its place as a scope caveat.

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?

No output schema exists, and while the description explains that a job_id is returned and how to poll it, it omits the semantics of query and max_folders for a tool with an entirely undocumented schema. Adequate for the async pattern but incomplete on inputs.

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 carry the burden, yet it only clarifies course_id ('native or cached id from course results'). The query and max_folders parameters are never explained, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and text.

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 and resource ('Find files/documents/assessments') plus the mechanism ('opening a known course and nested folders using DOM'), which distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like study_search. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear operational context: requires a known course, uses plugin-owned login, and must be followed by polling study_school_job. The clause about explicit coverage gaps hints at when it is not sufficient, but no direct alternative tool is named for those gaps.

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