get_syllabus

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. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. However, for a simple getter with a single identifier and a defined output schema, the implied read-only nature is fairly transparent. It's adequate but could be more explicit.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Get the course's Syllabus body') and appends a helpful navigation hint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is optimally concise for a simple getter tool.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers the return format, so the description need not elaborate. For a single-parameter getter, the description is nearly complete, but it could strengthen transparency by explicitly stating that the operation is read-only and does not modify course data. Given the tool's simplicity, the current description is sufficient, but not fully comprehensive in the absence of annotations.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'course_identifier' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description's phrase 'the course's Syllabus' implicitly ties it to the course, but no additional meaning is added beyond the schema. The agent must infer that the identifier refers to the course ID. The description should have at least mentioned the parameter's purpose or format to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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'), a well-defined resource ('the course's Syllabus body'), and even includes a navigation path ('Settings > Course Details > Syllabus') that clarifies exactly what data is returned. This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like get_course_details or get_page_content, as it targets the syllabus field specifically.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs the syllabus body for a course. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource is so specific that there's no obvious competing tool among the siblings. It also implicitly communicates that it's a read operation, which is appropriate for a getter. It lacks an explicit 'use this when, not that' statement, so it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

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