get_test_day_guidePractical guidance for Canadian citizenship test day, plus what recent test-takers actually reported: hot topics that came up a lot lately and short anonymous tips from real reports on OathReady.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| before | Yes | ||
| during | Yes | ||
| web_page | Yes | ||
| recent_reports | Yes | ||
| online_test_facts | Yes | ||
| recently_hot_topics | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with a retrieval tool. The description adds context about content (hot topics, tips) beyond 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy.
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?
With no input parameters and an output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool returns.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate for zero 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 the tool provides 'Practical guidance for Canadian citizenship test day' plus recent test-taker reports, distinguishing it from siblings like get_oath_guide or get_study_guide.
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 implies usage for test day guidance but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: presence calculation, question lookup/grading, stats, daily challenge, journey stats, mock test, oath guide, practice question, study guide, test day guide, and test info. Even the three question-providing tools (get_daily_challenge, get_mock_test, get_practice_question) are well-differentiated by format and intent.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with most starting with 'get_' (e.g., get_daily_challenge, get_mock_test) and two exceptions (calculate_presence, check_answer) that still adhere to the same verb_noun structure. No mixed conventions.
11 tools is well-scoped for the Canadian citizenship test domain. It covers eligibility calculation, multiple question formats, statistics, guides, and test-day information without being overwhelming or sparse.
The tool surface covers the entire lifecycle: eligibility check (calculate_presence), study resources (practice questions, mock tests, study guide, daily challenge), reference info (test info, oath guide, test day guide), statistics, and a question-answer lookup tool. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.