Get My Courses

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing returned data; it does not discuss pagination, filtering, or response shape, but the read-only nature is well covered by the annotation.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core function stated first, followed by practical invocation scenarios. Each sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary repetition or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and when to use it, and the optional parameter is already documented in the schema.

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 only parameter, activeOnly, is fully described in the schema with a clear explanation and default behavior. The tool description does not add additional parameter context, but with 100% schema description coverage, a baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly identifies the tool's function: fetching the user's enrolled Brightspace courses. It specifies the exact resource (courses) and the data returned (names, codes, and IDs), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_my_grades or get_assignments.

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 description provides explicit use cases: when the user asks about their courses, enrolled classes, current semester, or needs a course ID for other queries. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool suggestions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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