get_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing that the output includes external tool links (Gradescope/Ed) and course website links, and that it provides a structured outline. It doesn't describe pagination or filtering behavior, but given the annotations, this is acceptable and adds useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional detail about external tools is appended succinctly. Every sentence earns its place, and it reads naturally.

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?

Given it's a read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the return content (modules, topics, fields, links). It doesn't mention how to filter by module or whether results are paginated, but these are minor gaps. The tool's simplicity and annotations cover most needs, so a 4 is fair.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'course' and 'module' parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about how the 'module' filter works or the format of the 'course' parameter. It only repeats the concept of modules, which is already in the schema. Baseline 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 states the tool returns a course content outline with modules and topics, including specific fields like topicIds, file types, links, and due dates. It also mentions external tools and course website links, which distinguishes it from assignment/quiz-specific tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implies usage by stating what it returns, but it does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like get_assignments or get_quizzes. There is no 'use this for X, use that for Y' guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the purpose, but explicit routing to siblings is missing.

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