get_front_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool returns the title and body of the front page, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention potential error behavior, authorization requirements, or any side effects. Since it is a simple getter and the return content is specified, a middle score is appropriate; the description is transparent about its core behavior but lacks depth.

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, succinct sentence that directly states the action and the data returned. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler. Every word contributes to understanding, making it exemplary in brevity and clarity.

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) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what the tool does and what it returns. The only gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to the many sibling tools, but that falls under usage guidelines. For a simple getter, the description is sufficiently complete for correct 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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameter. The description implicitly indicates that 'course_identifier' identifies the course whose front page is requested, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's semantics (e.g., that it is a course ID or the expected format). Given the 0% coverage, the description provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema's name and type, but is not misleading.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('the course's front page (homepage)'), and further specifies the exact data returned ('title and body'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_course_details (which likely returns broader course info) and get_page_content (which targets arbitrary pages). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when it is appropriate, when it is not, or any comparison to siblings such as get_course_details, get_syllabus, or get_page_content. The agent must infer context from the description alone, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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