Get unit curriculum

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the structure of the returned data for maths but does not mention side effects, permissions, or global behavior. The agent is informed of what the tool returns but not of any potential restrictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 one required integer parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns for maths. However, it could be more general or mention behavior for other subjects if applicable.

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 single parameter 'unit' is explained: it's the unit's scope value (maths chapter number). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only specifies integer type. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 that the tool retrieves the curriculum slice for one unit, specifying the content for maths (ordered lessons, components, tasks, bilan lesson, cross-unit progression). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_context or get_terminology, but could be more explicit about its unique role.

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 implies that the tool should be used when needing curriculum details for a specific unit, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. No exclusions or context for other subjects are given.

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