list_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral nuance by clarifying that 'active' may not correspond to the current academic year, which affects interpretation of results. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence carries essential information: the core action, the search capability, and a caveat about active semantics. There is no padding or redundant detail.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return contents ('IDs and access dates'). It covers both parameters and the key semantic caveat. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but for a course listing tool this is acceptable. The annotations cover safety, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so effectively: 'Search by course name or code' explains the query parameter, and 'Active does not necessarily mean the current academic year' clarifies the semantics of activeOnly. Both parameters are given meaning beyond the raw schema, fully compensating for the lack of 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('your enrolled Brightspace courses'), and the output ('with IDs and access dates'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_assignments or list_quizzes, which target different domains. The search capability is also mentioned, adding to the tool's identity.

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 gives clear context on what the tool is for and even warns about the meaning of 'active' ('does not necessarily mean the current academic year'), which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since the siblings are mostly unrelated (mail, grades, etc.), the intended use is fairly obvious, so a 4 is appropriate.

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