audit_exam_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only comparison, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it records mismatches, what happens on failure, or whether it has side effects. The existence of an output schema means return structure need not be described, but behavior is still under-specified.

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 with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the terms 'full preview' and 'reviewed saved answers' are ambiguous enough that conciseness comes at the expense of clarity.

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 one-parameter audit tool with no annotations, the description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the definition lacks behavioral context, usage conditions, and parameter meaning needed for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 0% and the single parameter 'run_id' has no schema-level description. The phrase 'this run's' faintly gestures at run_id, but the description does not explain what a run is, where run_id comes from, or how the preview and saved answers are scoped to that run. The description must compensate for the schema gap and does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Compare every answer in the full preview against this run's reviewed saved answers.' This gives a clear idea of an audit/comparison operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the similarly named sibling 'audit_exam_browser_preview' or explain what 'full preview' and 'reviewed saved answers' mean in this system.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'audit_exam_browser_preview', 'verify_owned_exam_saved_answer', or 'preview_owned_exam_questions'. It implies an audit scenario but provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite context.

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