get_grades

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, so the description earns credit for adding two things they don't: the data comes from a cache (possible staleness) and a prior local login plus 'refresh jw' is required. It stops short of describing pagination or staleness semantics.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose first, precondition second. No filler, no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. Purpose, precondition, and the key query semantic are covered; only pagination behavior and cache-staleness implications are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description carries the param burden. It clarifies the non-obvious 'query' param as a course/semester keyword filter, but says nothing about 'limit' or 'offset', leaving two of three params to inference from standard naming.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('读取本人教务成绩缓存' – read one's own grade cache) and adds scope ('本人' = own grades). The word '缓存' (cache) usefully distinguishes it from a fresh fetch, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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?

It gives a real precondition ('需要先在本地登录并刷新 jw'), which tells the agent what must happen before calling. However it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as refresh_source or get_exams, so routing guidance is only implied.

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