edubase_get_exam_branding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the specific branding attributes returned, which is useful but not additional behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the operation ('Get the branding of an exam') and then efficiently enumerates the key aspects returned. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 one-parameter read operation with rich annotations, a 100% schema-covered parameter, and an output schema present, this description is nearly complete. It names the resource and the expected returned fields; only an explicit pointer to sibling branding tools is missing, which is a minor gap.

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 single parameter 'exam' is already documented in the schema as an 'exam identification string', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description mentions 'an exam' but adds no format, example, or constraint beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource ('branding of an exam'), then lists the precise data points returned: enabled state, image type (logo or cover), and branding color. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like post_exam_branding or delete_exam_branding.

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 description implies usage by describing what is retrieved, so an agent can infer it should be called when exam branding information is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over related tools such as edubase_post_exam_branding or edubase_get_exam_settings, nor does it give any exclusions.

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