Get Course Roster

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it reveals the default privacy behavior of returning only instructors and TAs, and that students require an explicit opt-in via includeStudents. This is meaningful additional transparency for an agent handling user requests.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function, then gives user-intent triggers, then states default behavior and the parameter needed to change it. Every sentence contributes useful guidance.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with only one required parameter and complete schema descriptions, the description covers selection triggers, default behavior, and parameter usage. No output schema or nested objects exist, so return-value documentation is not needed. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds further meaning by explicitly stating 'Use includeStudents to get full class list,' reinforcing the parameter's effect and the privacy default. It doesn't elaborate on searchTerm, but the schema already documents that adequately.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the roster for a course') and specifies that it includes instructors, TAs, and optionally students with names, emails, and roles. It also gives concrete user-intent examples. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_classlist_emails, which could overlap, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage context: 'Use this when the user asks about classmates, instructor contact info, TA emails, professor names, or who's in a class.' It also explains the default behavior and how to include students. It does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the stated context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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