Retrieves a course's sidebar details—instructor and TA lists, the current user's role, and course code—using a numeric course ID.
取得指定課程的側欄資訊（授課老師名單、助教名單、目前使用者身份與課程代號）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| courseId | Yes | 課程數字 ID（例如行政法一為 35657） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing the four data categories returned, including the caller's own identity — something the name alone would not convey. It stops short of stating permission requirements, behavior for non-enrolled users, or error/empty cases.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by an inline enumeration of return contents. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the returned fields, which is the main ambiguity for a getter. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases and access requirements, which are modest for a one-parameter read tool.
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 100%: the single courseId parameter is documented with a concrete numeric example (35657). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (取得指定課程的側欄資訊) and enumerates the exact contents returned: instructor list, TA list, current user identity, and course code. This is distinctive against siblings like list_teaching_courses or get_homework_detail, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied: call it when you need a course's sidebar metadata, and it requires a courseId. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_teaching_courses or list_granted_consents, and no prerequisites (e.g. enrollment) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.