edubase_get_exam_fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds meaningful semantic context about what the returned fields represent (built-in vs. custom examinee fields), but discloses nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether fields are exam-scoped or organization-wide.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause. The second sentence is entirely additive, explaining the payload rather than restating the name.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure, and the annotations carry the safety profile; the explanation of built-in versus custom fields is the right level of added context. Only the absence of any routing hint toward sibling field tools keeps it from a 5.

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% and there is a single 'exam' parameter already documented in the schema as an 'exam identification string'. The description adds no format, ID-vs-slug detail, or lookup behavior beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (user data fields of an exam), then enumerates what those fields actually are (built-in name/email/phone plus custom examinee fields), which makes the resource concrete rather than abstract. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling write operations edubase_post_exam_fields or edubase_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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites. The reader must infer from the tool name alone that this is the read counterpart to post_exam_fields and delete_exam_fields; the description's note about fields examinees fill in before the test hints at context but never frames it as usage guidance.

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