get_courses

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 mentions the JSESSIONID parameter but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of courses). The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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 brief and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It uses minimal sentences without unnecessary fluff. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter info more seamlessly.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema with 0% coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the parameter but fails to address key aspects like return values (what format courses are returned in), error handling, or authentication context beyond the parameter name. For a data retrieval tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 explicitly documents the single parameter (JSESSIONID) and its type (str), adding meaning beyond the input schema which has 0% description coverage. Since there's only one parameter and it's fully explained in the description, this compensates well for the schema gap. No additional parameter details are needed.

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 states '获取课程名称与ID' (Get course names and IDs), which provides a clear verb ('get') and resource ('courses'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (get_question, submit_question) or specify scope (e.g., all courses vs. user-specific). The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like authentication context) or compare it to sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the parameter (JSESSIONID) alone.

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