Get documents for a course week

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'recursively' and 'accessible', which gives some behavioral context, but it does not cover pagination, error handling, or implications of includeLinks/includeHidden beyond the schema. It's clearly read-only but that's implicit.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose, followed by a brief clarification of the week parameter. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't clarify what 'accessible' means, whether results are paginated, or how this tool differs from elearn_get_course_documents. It would benefit from a note about when to prefer this over siblings and what the response structure looks like.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by explaining the week parameter can be a number or title fragment, which the schema already states. It does not add depth to courseId, includeLinks, or includeHidden beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action ('Return'), the resource ('every accessible file topic'), scope ('for one course'), and specificity ('matching Week modules', 'recursively'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like elearn_get_course_documents or elearn_get_recent_documents by focusing on week-based retrieval.

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 implies the use case (retrieve documents for a specific week) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like elearn_get_course_documents or elearn_search_content. No exclusions or routing hints are provided.

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