list_sections

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

No annotations are available, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the basic function, without mentioning pagination, ordering, whether sections include only published/active ones, error handling, or authorization requirements. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 purpose and includes a useful detail (student counts). It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, with no filler.

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?

For a simple list tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient to understand the core function. However, it lacks context about behavior like pagination, visibility filtering, or relationship to other course entities, and doesn't mention any limitations. Given the presence of many sibling tools, a slightly richer description would aid correct selection.

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 beyond implying it identifies a course. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate, but it only indirectly references the parameter ('in a course'). No guidance on format, requiredness (though schema says required), or how to obtain the identifier.

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 ('List') and the resource ('sections') scoped to a course, and the qualifier 'with student counts' adds specificity. It can be differentiated from sibling tools like list_courses (lists courses) and list_users (lists users), though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 like list_courses or get_course_details. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The tool's purpose is implied but not contextualized.

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