edubase_get_question

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds useful context by explaining the hierarchical position and hinting that full details are obtained via export, implying this tool returns limited data. This helps the agent understand the tool's scope.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, context, and guidance. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy. However, the third sentence somewhat distracts from the primary purpose, reducing clarity.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description gives basic usage context (hierarchy, limitation) but does not detail what the tool returns or how it behaves beyond 'check existing'. The output schema likely compensates, but the description could be more self-sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter clearly defined as 'external unique question identifier'. The description does not add any additional meaning or format guidance, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Check existing question' as the primary action, but the subsequent redirection to use the export function for details introduces ambiguity about the tool's actual purpose. It is distinct from 'get' siblings but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edubase_get_questions or edubase_get_question_id. The mention of using the export function for details indirectly suggests this tool is for quick checks, but no clear when-not or alternative naming.

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