list_bulletins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the payload fields returned and that results are scoped to a single specified course, but says nothing about permissions/role requirements, ordering, pagination, or behavior for an invalid courseId.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the action and resource first and uses a compact parenthetical for the return fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential gap by enumerating what comes back (title, date, HOT flag, draft status). Only minor behavioral details (ordering, permissions) are absent.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% ('課程 ID'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description's phrase 指定課程 corroborates that the list is scoped by course but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (取得/list) and resource (指定課程公告清單) and enumerates the returned fields (title, date, HOT pinned flag, draft status), so the agent knows exactly what data this yields. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_bulletin or copy_bulletin, but the 'list' framing is 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?

Usage is only implied by the read-only 'list' verb and the single courseId parameter. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus copy_bulletin / create_bulletin, nor any prerequisite (e.g. whether the caller must be enrolled in or teaching the course).

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