list_courses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It reveals an authentication requirement and that it lists courses, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or that it returns data without modification, though 'List' strongly implies non-mutating behavior. This is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes the scope ('enrolled in or teaches'), and contains no filler. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It captures the essential scope and behavior; any return-value details are covered by the output schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage vacuously. Per rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4 because there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to add anything for parameters.

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') and resource ('all courses'), and clearly scopes it to the authenticated user's enrollments and teaching. It is distinct from sibling tools that operate on course content (e.g., list_pages, list_modules) rather than courses themselves, making its purpose 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you need the current user's courses) without explicitly naming alternatives. It doesn't include exclusionary guidance, but the sibling set makes it obvious this is the only tool for listing courses. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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