get_course_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'LTI/external links are descriptors until their target is read; a listed link does not imply integration.' This is important for agents to avoid misinterpreting linked services as active integrations. It also mentions 'verified course metadata', which sets expectations about data quality.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the purpose and scope, then adding a crucial caveat. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key return concepts: a list of linked tools and verified metadata. The LTI caveat is essential for correct interpretation. It doesn't specify return format or pagination, but for a discovery tool, this is sufficient. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing.

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 the single parameter (courseId) with 100% coverage, including a helpful description: 'Exact Brightspace numeric identifier from another tool.' The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Discover the tools actually linked by a course', with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates what is included (native navigation, own progress, groups, external services) and adds a distinguishing detail about verified metadata. This separates it from siblings like get_course_content or list_courses without needing to name them.

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 when to use the tool—when you need to know which tools are linked to a course. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer it from the purpose. A small gap is the lack of explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, but it's not misleading.

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