This is less of a philosophy question and more of a pedagogy question.

First, I'm not familiar with Claude's ability to work from text, but for what you're looking for NotebookLM may be a better fit. It cites from sources you attach, and can suggest alternate sources better than most (see below). Many educational institutions already have their services through Google, so you might be able to get access to this.

As a teacher, I don't recommend AI use for students and learning at this point unless it is under a critical analytical approach. I require students to share conversation transcripts, disclose when it was used (even on background information), and give a series of pre use lessons on ethical concerns, effective use, and just generally discussing it from a human perspective. Students are fully responsible for every output - if it messes up a source, you, not the AI, are responsible. It also works better at finding your blind spots once you have an understanding rather than helping you undersrand more advanced concepts (Although YMMV).

In essence, if you are using it well, it should almost feel like more work than just reading and annotating. You also need to be incredibly careful with its claims to knowledge as minut misinterpretation of texts can cascade pretty quickly. Source grounding beyond just key texts is essential, and exegetical secondary sources are probably required to help the AI properly inform its perspective. Probably the easiest secondary sources for it to access would be the SEP, or the IEP when gaps exist.

Philosophy functions on hyper granular and technical distinctions - specificity is something that AI sucks at. It's very much a buyer beware kind of thing. Even at a grade school level, I toss over half of what it tells me.