Get a ClassDojo roster

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description's statement 'without changing ClassDojo data' reinforces the read-only nature but adds no new behavioral detail, such as potential side effects, data freshness, or handling of open-world results. It is consistent with annotations but does not enrich them.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It is appropriately brief for a simple read operation, though the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of parameter and usage information. The structure itself is good, but it could be slightly longer to include essential context.

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 single parameter and lack of output schema, the description should at least mention how to obtain classId or what the return format is. It does neither, leaving the tool under-specified. While the operation is simple, the missing parameter semantics and absence of any output hints make it incomplete for reliable 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining classId. It does not mention classId at all, leaving its purpose, format, or source entirely unspecified. The agent cannot know that classId identifies the class without external context, which is a critical gap.

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 clear verb ('reads') and resource ('class roster') and explicitly notes it does not change data, which conveys a read-only intent. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like classdojo_list_classes or classdojo_inspect_workbook, which also involve reading class-related data, so it falls short of 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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that classId comes from list_classes) or situations where siblings would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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