get_weak_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that ranking is based on study count and historical accuracy, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but it does not describe the return format or pagination.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and the ranking logic with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'limit' controls and what the ranked list looks like. While annotations cover safety, the description leaves key operational details to inference, making it only minimally adequate.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description does not mention it at all. An agent cannot infer what the limit applies to (number of items returned? study count threshold?) without additional context.

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 a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('weak grammar and vocabulary') and explains the ranking criteria ('study count and historical accuracy'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_vocab or get_due, but the concept is distinct enough for an agent to understand its purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_vocab, get_due, or get_queue. The description implies it identifies weak items, but does not state when this is appropriate or what conditions would favor it over other retrieval tools.

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