scobees_list_lernpfade

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 does disclose the returned fields and implies a read-only listing, but says nothing about pagination behaviour (page/page_size exist with defaults), result size limits, or permissions.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the capability and returned fields come first, the usage intent second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Reasonable for a simple list tool — it names returned fields, compensating for the absent output schema. But with no annotations and half the parameters undocumented, an agent still lacks pagination guidance and confirmation of read-only behaviour.

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 coverage is 50%: title and subject_id are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces subject scoping ('eines Fachs (oder alle)'). However, page and page_size are undocumented in both places, and no pagination semantics are added — the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Listet Lernpfade') and adds scope ('eines Fachs (oder alle)') plus the fields returned (ID, Name, Status, Jahrgänge). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling scobees_get_lernpfad, though that sibling is never named.

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?

Provides an explicit usage scenario: 'Zum Finden bestehender Kurse, die erweitert werden sollen' – i.e. discovery before an update. It gives no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. get_lernpfad for a single item), so it stops short of a 5.

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