Retrieve a role-based course list that separates teaching/TA-managed courses from student-enrolled courses, so you can identify available management or viewing permissions.
【查詢課程身分分類清單】取得所有課程之身分權限劃分清冊，清楚展示哪些課程具備助教/教師管理權（可作業CRUD、批改、公告等），哪些課程是一般修課學生權限（可瀏覽、下載講義、繳交作業等）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns a classification list and explains the two permission categories, which implies a read-only query, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, auth requirements, or return format. For a zero-parameter read tool this is adequate but not rich.
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 front-loaded sentence with a bracketed label and a clear explanation, with no wasted text. It is slightly dense but appropriately sized for a simple list 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?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned classification categories well enough to invoke it correctly. It could mention the read-only nature or output shape, but the core information is present.
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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, and the schema is trivially complete.
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 uses a specific verb (查詢/取得) and resource (課程身分分類清單), and explains the two permission categories it reports. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as list_teaching_courses or get_user_permissions, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The description implies the tool is for checking course permission classification, but it does not tell the agent when to choose it over list_teaching_courses or get_user_permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.