get_course_structure

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds no extra behavioral details beyond stating it retrieves structure. No contradictions. It minimally extends the annotation context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero unnecessary words. It conveys the action, resource, and key advantage efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description could specify the return structure shape, but 'module and item structure' sufficiently sets expectations. The tool is simple with only two well-documented params and a read-only hint, making this description adequate for basic selection and invocation.

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% for both parameters, with detailed descriptions (e.g., course_identifier accepts code or Canvas ID, include_unpublished defaults to true). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, 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 action: 'Get the full module and item structure for a course in a single call.' It specifies the resource (course structure) and distinguishes from siblings like list_modules and list_module_items by emphasizing the full nested structure and the single-call advantage.

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?

It implies use when you need the complete module and item hierarchy at once, contrasting with separate list calls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the context of 'single call' hints at the trade-off.

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