inspect_exam_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: JS is not executed (so dynamically rendered content will be absent) and the GET may mutate exam access state. It stops short of saying what that refresh affects (timer, session, progress) or whether auth/account state is required, so the mutation risk is named but not characterized.

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 short sentences, no waste, key constraint front-loaded. The trailing clause "may refresh exam access state" is vague enough that it hints rather than informs, keeping it below a 5.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a read tool sitting in a very dense exam/browser sibling cluster with no annotations and undocumented parameters, the description should say how it differs from the other page-inspection tools. As written the agent lacks the context to place it correctly.

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 both required parameters (account_id, exam_url) are bare strings with only titles. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap — e.g., what form exam_url takes, or why account_id is required to read a URL.

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 ("Read an existing exam page") and adds a negative scope ("without running JS or saving answers") that separates it from saving/answering siblings. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 only usage signal is the embedded exclusion (no JS, no answer saving); there is no statement of when to choose this over analyze_exam_html, inspect_owned_page, or inspect_exam_grading_html. The agent must infer the selection rule from the tool name alone.

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