Get all documents for a course

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns 'all accessible file topics' recursively, implying permission-based filtering, and mentions the returned metadata (module paths, dates). However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, confirm read-only nature, or address potential error conditions. The term 'accessible' hints at filtering but lacks explicit detail on hidden or link handling, leaving partial transparency.

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, concise sentence of approximately 20 words. It front-loads the action and key return contents, avoiding unnecessary detail. While it omits parameter explanations, that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness one. The structure is clean and scannable, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 tool has three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema coverage. The description states the primary function but fails to explain the optional flags (includeLinks, includeHidden), any pagination or sorting defaults, or selection criteria relative to sibling tools. It is not sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional schema inspection.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (courseId, includeLinks, includeHidden). It omits how these parameters affect output or defaults. The description entirely misses parameter semantics, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names, which is inadequate for optional flags like includeLinks and includeHidden.

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 returns all accessible file topics in a course, recursively, with module paths and availability/modified dates. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('file topics in a course'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like elearn_get_week_documents or elearn_search_content, leaving the distinction implicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over elearn_get_week_documents or elearn_search_content. The agent must infer usage context from the name and description alone, which is insufficient.

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