Get course outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the ordering guarantee and the presence of item_id in each entry, which is useful return-shape context, but says nothing about pagination, empty results, or invalid course_id behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core scoping fact (course_id sourced from list_courses) is front-loaded. The first sentence is slightly compressed and reads awkwardly as a fragment, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns; it does state entries are ordered and carry an item_id, which is the key shape information. It leaves gaps around what a 'sitting' is, whether results are paginated, and what an error response looks like, but for a simple annotated read tool this is close to adequate.

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% for the single parameter, but course_id is largely self-explanatory from its name. The description does add provenance value by stating it comes from list_courses, which is more than the bare schema offers, though no format, length, or validation context is given.

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 names the resource (ordered chapters/sittings for a course) and its granularity (each entry has an item_id), which is enough to tell it apart from siblings like get_item or search_content. It stops short of an explicit verb, reading as a noun phrase rather than 'retrieves the ordered outline of...', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'a course_id from list_courses' implies the prerequisite that list_courses must be called first to obtain the id, which is genuine routing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or mention of alternatives such as get_item for drilling into an individual entry.

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