Dump Entire Course

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description focuses on additional behavioral traits: nested grouping, per-category caps, optional announcements, and truncation of descriptions in large dumps. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotated safety profile, though it could be more explicit about what happens when a category exceeds the cap.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose sentence, a compact Args list, and a valuable Returns paragraph. The Args section duplicates schema details and could be trimmed, but the overall length is justified by the useful behavioral and usage guidance.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description fully specifies the return shape, including nested topics, no_topic grouping, and announcements. It also covers truncation behavior and attachment handling. Minor gaps remain around error conditions and pagination beyond the cap, but the description is largely complete for this read-only aggregation tool.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all parameters, including defaults, ranges, and enums. The description's Args section repeats this information almost verbatim without adding new semantics, so it earns the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters.

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 this tool fetches a course's full structure in one call, with topics, coursework, materials, and optional announcements nested. It distinguishes itself from the per-resource sibling tools by being 'the fastest way to get a complete picture of a class.' No ambiguity remains about what resource is operated on.

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 explicitly positions this as the go-to for a full course snapshot and directs users to per-resource tools when full detail is needed due to truncation. It also tells users how to read attachment text via drive_fetch_file_content, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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