elearning_get_khs

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it largely does not meet it. "Mengambil" implies a read, but the description says nothing about authorization requirements, whether results are scoped to the logged-in student, whether the call fails or returns all semesters when the parameter is omitted, or what the response contains beyond a generic list of grades.

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 names the returned artifacts without padding. Nothing is redundant against the name or schema, and it is sized appropriately for a one-parameter read 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?

For a simple read with one optional parameter and no output schema, naming the returned content (KHS, grades, SKS) covers the essentials. However, with zero annotation coverage the description should have addressed the authentication context and the no-parameter default, both of which materially affect correct invocation.

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 100%, so the enum-like examples ('1', '2', 'Ganjil', 'Genap') are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that the record is per-semester; it does not clarify the default behavior when the optional semester is omitted, which is the one piece of meaning the schema leaves open.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Mengambil" = retrieve) with concrete resources: Kartu Hasil Studi, grade list, and SKS credits per semester. That is enough to separate it from siblings like elearning_get_jadwal or elearning_get_materi, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource itself: an agent can infer this is the tool for exam results rather than schedules or assignments. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of whether elearning_login is a prerequisite, and no statement about what happens if the tool is called before authentication.

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