OPERATOR / Inspectable State: usage snapshot of the whole course — learner count, level mix, completions, per-lesson pass rates, and recent reflections. Requires admin_key. Answers 'what is the state of the work?' for an operator agent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| admin_key | Yes | Operator admin key (Worker secret ADMIN_KEY). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It implies read-only ('usage snapshot', 'inspectable state') but does not explicitly state that it does not modify state. Could be clearer about 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?
Single sentence front-loaded with 'OPERATOR / Inspectable State' followed by specific data points and usage context. Every part adds value with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple tool with 1 parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers overall purpose and usage context adequately. Could add return format details but not critical.
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 coverage is 100% with admin_key description already present. Description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the requirement. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 returns a 'usage snapshot' with specific data points (learner count, level mix, completions, per-lesson pass rates, recent reflections), distinguishing it from siblings like list_lessons or overview.
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?
Explicitly states the tool requires admin_key and serves operator agents answering 'what is the state of the work?', providing clear context. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but sufficient for its role.
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: lesson management, session handling, admin operations, feedback, and overview. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., complete_lesson, start_session), but 'overview' is a plain noun, breaking the pattern. The rest are consistent.
9 tools is well-scoped for a course management system, covering all essential operations without bloat.
Covers lesson lifecycle, session management, admin actions, and feedback. Minor gap: no tool for editing lesson content, but not core to the server's purpose.
