Crawl Course

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as potential heavy network usage, whether modification occurs, or permissions needed. The description only hints at navigation but omits important context like result format or side effects.

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 a single short sentence, but it is too minimal to be effective. It lacks structure and does not front-load key information. While concise in length, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 4 parameters, the description provides no context on what the tool returns, how the crawl behaves (e.g., depth limits, pagination), or what 'inventory' entails. It is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%; the description does not mention any of the 4 parameters (course_url, max_depth, max_pages, include_downloads). This leaves the agent without any guidance on how to set parameters for correct invocation.

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 verb 'inventory' and the resource 'pages and downloadable resources inside a Ninova course tree.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_course_info' or 'get_course_sections' by implying a broader scanning action. However, 'inventory' could be more specific about what it collects.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparisons to other get_* tools that provide specific data points.

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