list_courses

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 behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the default term selection and the ability to parse NYU codes like FA26_CSCI-UA_310_1_040. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('List Brightspace courses with ids'), and the second sentence provides essential default and parsing behavior without unnecessary detail.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: what it lists, what the default term is, and what code formats it parses. A fuller return-format description would be helpful but is not essential given the simple scope.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool parses full NYU codes like FA26_CSCI-UA_310_1_040, which is more specific than the schema's term-code examples (FA26, SP26, etc.). This helps an agent understand what forms of input are accepted.

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: 'List Brightspace courses with ids.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific items like assignments, quizzes, or grades. The mention of NYU code parsing adds a concrete scope beyond the generic name.

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 clear usage context by stating the default behavior ('Defaults to the current NYU semester') and showing what kinds of NYU codes are accepted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to know when this tool is appropriate.

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