edubase_get_exam_round

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

Annotations already convey that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the result is cached, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description meets the baseline but adds little value.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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 one parameter, a complete output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is functionally sufficient. However, it lacks any explanation of what a 'round' is or what the current round represents, which may force the agent to infer semantics from the output schema. This is adequate but not ideal.

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 only parameter 'exam' has a schema description ('exam identification string') that fully covers its meaning. The tool description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies given the high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current round of an exam'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like edubase_post_exam_round. However, it does not elaborate on what a 'round' means or how it relates to exam state, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 alternatives, no preconditions, and no mention of related tools. The only context is the operation name itself, which is insufficient for agents to decide between this and other exam-related getters without deeper inference.

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