get_study_items

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval operation via 'already saved' and 'Return', and adds meaningful context about generated study items versus raw concepts. However, it does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, or the prerequisite that study items must have been saved beforehand. Basic retrieval semantics are clear, but operational traits are under-specified.

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, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by disambiguating from get_material. Appropriately sized and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return structure is covered. However, the description omits useful context about the workflow: study items must be generated by save_flashcards or save_quiz before this tool returns anything, and document_id provenance is unclear. Still adequate for a basic getter, but with clear gaps.

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 has a single document_id integer with no description (0% coverage). The description only says these are items 'for a document', which adds little beyond the schema's title 'Document Id'. It does not explain how to obtain the document_id, whether it comes from list_documents, or what constraints apply, so the description does not compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 ('Return') and resource ('flashcards and quiz questions already saved for a document'). It also distinguishes itself from get_material by clarifying which tool returns generated study items versus raw source concepts, making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

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 explicitly names get_material as the alternative and explains the key difference: this tool returns generated study items, get_material returns raw source concepts. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance for the most relevant sibling.

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