Archive: Who Taught

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that results are ranked by term count and include most-recent-term and average fill rate, which is useful but is really output content rather than behavior beyond 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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and packs the ranking, recency, and fill-rate details with no filler or repetition.

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 the description need not explain return values, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, with two parameters at 0% coverage and no usage routing against a large sibling archive_* family, the definition is only adequate for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both parameters depend on the description. course_code is inferable from 'a course', but limit_terms is never mentioned or explained — it is unclear whether it caps the number of terms, instructors, or rows. The description does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('list'), a precise resource ('every instructor who has taught a course'), and a scoping constraint ('across archived terms'), plus the ranking dimension. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like archive_instructor_courses or archive_course_history, though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'across archived terms' and the required course_code. There is no statement of when to prefer this over archive_instructor_courses, archive_term_sections, or archive_compare_terms, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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