get_study_guideGet Examova study guides / articles for a certification (optionally by topic). Returns titles, summaries, and links to free public guides on the Examova blog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No | Optional topic keyword | |
| certification | No | Certification slug/code/name (optional) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guides | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns titles, summaries, and links to free public guides, which is useful context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.
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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and return values. Every word earns its place with 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?
The description is complete for most use cases, and an output schema exists to define return structure. However, it does not clarify behavior when both parameters are omitted, which is a minor contextual gap.
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 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optionally by topic' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already define topic and certification.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'Examova study guides / articles' and clarifies the scope 'for a certification (optionally by topic)'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_exam_info and search_practice_questions by focusing solely on study guides.
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 the tool is for retrieving study guides, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools are provided, though the narrow scope makes the primary use case obvious.
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: exam info, signup links, study guides, certification listing, and practice questions. There is no overlap, and agents can easily select the right tool.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_, list_, search_. This makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing exam prep information and sample content. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the core user journey: discover certifications, get exam details, access study guides, sign up, and try sample questions. No obvious gaps exist for the stated public-info purpose.