List eLearn courses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the output fields but does not state whether authentication is required, whether it is read-only, or any rate limits or pagination behavior. The word 'List' implies a read operation, but this is implicit rather than explicit.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds useful output details. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not mention authentication prerequisites (a sibling 'elearn_authenticate' exists), pagination behavior, or how the 'limit' parameter affects results. The listed output fields provide some context but not enough for an agent to fully understand the tool's expected usage.

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 schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (search, activeOnly, pinnedOnly), but the description adds no parameter-specific guidance. The 'limit' parameter lacks a schema description and is not mentioned in the description either, leaving a gap. The mention of 'pin state' in the output hints at the pinnedOnly filter but does not explain how to use it.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('accessible SMU eLearn courses'), and enumerates the output fields (course IDs, codes, term dates, access state, pin state). This is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'elearn_list_pinned_courses', though the name and filters imply a more general listing.

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 alternatives like 'elearn_list_pinned_courses' or when to prefer one filter over another. It simply states what it does without any context on selection criteria or exclusions.

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