get_course_structure

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what the tool gets, not how it behaves: no mention of pagination, size limits, permissions, or whether the result is nested vs flat. This is a significant gap for a read operation that could return a large hierarchy.

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 sentence with no filler, directly stating the action and scope. It is front-loaded and efficient, avoiding any redundant information. This meets the standard of every word earning 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?

Although an output schema is present, the description lacks critical context: it does not clarify the difference between this tree and list_modules, nor does it describe the structure returned. The ambiguity could lead to incorrect tool selection. For a tool with a single parameter but a potentially large output, this is insufficiently complete.

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 description does not explain the course_identifier parameter at all, and schema coverage is 0%. The schema allows string or integer but does not clarify format (e.g., Canvas ID vs SIS ID). With a single required parameter and no description, the agent must guess its meaning, so the score is minimal.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a precise resource ('full module/item tree for a course'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_modules (which likely returns only modules) and get_course_details (course info). The 'in one call' additionally implies a comprehensive alternative to stepwise fetching.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus list_modules or other course-structure tools. The phrase 'in one call' suggests efficiency but does not name the alternative or the exact conditions that would favor it. An agent has to infer the trade-off without direct instruction.

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