get_course_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It partially discloses the return data (name, type, url, description, completion state) and its reliance on a valid course_id. However, it does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or describe error 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?

The description consists of two brief sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the tool's function and providing usage context and return data details. No unnecessary words.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main use case and return fields. It could be more explicit about the data structure (e.g., sections containing activities), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool.

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 single parameter 'course_id' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds crucial meaning by stating it should come from list_courses, which clarifies the expected value source beyond the raw integer type.

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 lists sections/topics and activities of a course, with a specific verb 'List' and a distinct resource. It differentiates from sibling tools that focus on specific content types (e.g., list_assignments, list_forums).

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 explicitly says to use the 'id from list_courses', providing a clear prerequisite. It does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools, but the prerequisite is strong guidance.

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