Get Course Lesson Files

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only implies a read-only operation ('List') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires no special permissions, or that it may involve network access. The description fails to mention pagination, rate limits, or any 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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it lacks necessary detail (e.g., parameter descriptions, context) that would make it more useful, so it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 the presence of multiple sibling tools and a complex input schema with four parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of 'Ninova Ders Dosyaları', nor does it hint at the return structure (though an output schema exists). The agent lacks crucial context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The tool description also offers no explanation of the four parameters ('course', 'compact', 'max_depth', 'recursive'). An agent cannot infer their meaning or defaults from the description alone.

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 it lists files and folders under a specific section ('Ders Dosyaları') for a course. The verb 'List' is appropriate, and the resource is well-identified. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling tool 'get_course_class_files', which might have a similar purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_course_class_files' and 'get_course_sections', an agent would have to infer the appropriate use case from the tool name alone. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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