edubase_get_exam_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the field types but doesn't disclose additional behavioral aspects like response structure or permissions, which is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the core action and resource, the second clarifies what 'fields' means. No redundancy and all information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool, an output schema exists, annotations cover safety, and the parameter is fully documented. The description explains what is returned conceptually. Only a direct usage guideline 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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'exam' parameter with 'exam identification string'. The description adds no further detail about the parameter, so it doesn't go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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' with a clear resource 'user data fields of an exam'. It further elaborates what these fields are (built-in name, email, phone, and custom fields), distinguishing it from mutation tools like post/delete_exam_fields.

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?

While the read-only nature and the context of fields are evident, the description does not explicitly state when to use this instead of sibling tools (e.g., edubase_post_exam_fields or edubase_get_exam_settings). The intended use is implied but not stated directly.

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