get_course_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implicitly indicates a read operation ('list' and 'fetch'), but never explicitly states it is read-only, does not mention side effects, permissions, or pagination behavior. The two modes are described, but deeper behavioral traits are omitted.

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 concise and well-structured: a single opening sentence states the purpose, followed by a clean Args section. It front-loads the core functionality and includes practical examples. No wasted words.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a simple tool, especially with an output schema present to define return format. Yet the unexplained 'account' parameter is a gap, and there is no mention of authentication or whether the operation is safe to retry. Given the lack of annotations, this leaves some ambiguity, so it does not fully cover the context.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for course_id (numeric, sourced from get_courses) and page_url (URL slug with example, and 'empty to list all'). However, it completely ignores the 'account' parameter, which appears in the schema with a default. Thus it covers two of three parameters, adding value but missing one.

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 lists wiki pages or fetches a specific page's body, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings (assignments, files, modules) by the subject matter, though it never explicitly names an alternative. This is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives parameter usage guidance (e.g., how to get course_id from get_courses, the meaning of page_url, and that an empty page_url lists all pages). However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or trade-offs. There is implied usage context but no explicit tool-selection direction.

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