Archive: Instructor Courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two behaviors beyond that: results are ordered newest first, and ambiguous names yield candidate matches rather than a single answer. It still says nothing about pagination behavior relative to the default limit of 40.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the ordering and ambiguity notes packed efficiently. No filler, though the second sentence could carry more parameter detail at the same length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value shape need not be explained. However, with 0% parameter coverage the description leaves the limit parameter (default 40) and instructor-matching semantics unexplained, which matters for a tool that can return ambiguous candidate sets.

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 0% across two parameters. The description implies instructor is a name (via the ambiguity/candidate-match note) but says nothing about matching syntax or partial names, and the limit parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 the courses one instructor has taught across archived terms') plus a scope qualifier (archived terms) that separates it from live-course siblings like list_courses. It does not name the nearest archive siblings (archive_who_taught, archive_course_history) to sharpen the distinction, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite a dense archive_* sibling family. The ambiguity note explains a return behavior, not when to reach for this tool over archive_who_taught or list_courses.

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