grade-git-program

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the execution path (core.grade → graders/gh), grading strictness differences (quiz vs homework), and the current STUB status. However, it does not explicitly mention potential side effects or whether it writes grades to a gradebook.

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 concise and densely packed with valuable information, including purpose, scope, strictness policy, execution path, and status. While the heavy use of jargon and capitalization may reduce readability, every sentence adds meaningful detail and nothing is wasted.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential functional context: what it grades, how it executes, the grading policy, and its stub status. It lacks explicit side-effect details but is otherwise complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to add. The description appropriately omits parameter details, aligning with the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 identifies the tool as 'Grading SUB-SKILL for git-program assignments AND git-program quiz questions', stating it is the type-specific plug-in of the global grade skill and analogous to grade-nb. This makes the specific verb, resource, and scope unambiguous, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 states it is the type-specific plug-in for git-program items and handles both assignments and quiz questions, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of grade' or provide exclusions for tools like grade-nb, though the analogy hints at the distinction.

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