list_teaching_courses

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does signal a read-only retrieval ('取得') and names the fields returned, which is useful. It is silent on authentication/session requirements, result ordering, pagination, and behavior when the user holds no TA/teacher roles — all relevant for an MCP agent deciding whether to depend on this call.

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?

Two compact sentences: the first delivers the core scope and return contents, the second front-loads the dependency relationship to downstream tools. No filler, though the parenthetical field list could be trimmed if the response shape were documented elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — it names the four key returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. The remaining gap is the lack of session/auth preconditions and error behavior for a bootstrap-style tool in a large sibling set.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not add spurious or confusing input guidance.

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-and-resource pair: fetch courses where the caller's role is TA or teacher, and it enumerates the returned fields (course code, numeric ID, instructor roster, role). This scoping by role makes it distinguishable from a generic course-listing tool, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling get_classified_courses, which an agent may see as overlapping.

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 sentence 'this is the foundation for all homework, exam, and bulletin functions' implies a prerequisite use case, telling the agent to call this before those operations. However, it gives no explicit when-not conditions, no mention of get_classified_courses as an alternative, and no statement about whether results are cached or need refreshing.

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