edubase_get_exam_permission

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only, side-effect-free check. The description aligns with these annotations by stating 'Check if', implying evaluation without mutation. However, it does not add any behavioral information beyond what the annotations already provide (e.g., it does not mention that it may return a boolean or that the check is case-sensitive, nor does it justify the open world hint meaning the tool might return unknown results for missing exams).

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 sentence of 8 words, which is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value to the purpose. However, it could be improved by adding a sentence about typical use cases or nuances without becoming verbose.

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 that the tool has only 3 parameters (all with 100% schema coverage), an output schema is present, and simple annotations define safety, the description is adequate but not thorough. It omits information about the return type, error handling (e.g., what if the exam or user does not exist), and the fact that permission checking might be hierarchical (e.g., having admin implies view). The output schema likely describes the response, but the description doesn't guide the agent on interpreting it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. All three parameters (exam, user, permission) are described in the schema with brief notes but no additional value from the description. The enum for permission lists valid values, but the description does not clarify the meaning of each level (e.g., view vs. control) or the order of hierarchy.

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 states the purpose: 'Check if a user has permission on an exam.' This specifies the verb (check), the resource (exam), and the actors (user, permission). The description also implicitly distinguishes from siblings like `edubase_post_exam_permission` (which sets permission via POST) and `edubase_delete_exam_permission` (which removes permission), as those involve mutation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool is ideal for verification before granting access or that the user and exam information must be known beforehand. The sibling tools include similar permission-checking tools for other resource types (e.g., edubase_get_class_permission, edubase_get_quiz_permission), but the description does not help distinguish between them besides the resource name.

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