get_study_attempt

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating lookup, and naming status plus aggregate assessment gives some sense of the payload, but error behavior (unknown attempt_id), permissions, and whether results are cached or live are all unstated.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no redundant phrasing. Its brevity borders on under-specification rather than padding, which is the better failure mode.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and two required IDs make the call shape simple. However, with zero parameter description coverage, the definition should at least tell the agent where attempt_id comes from and how this differs from get_study_assessment.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to study_id or attempt_id — no format, no indication of where an attempt_id is obtained (likely list_study_attempts), and no statement of the parent-child relationship between the two IDs beyond the generic 'candidate attempt' phrasing.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('a candidate attempt') and states the payload ('status and aggregate development assessment'). It does not differentiate itself from the confusable siblings get_study_assessment or list_study_attempts, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. Given the presence of get_study_assessment and list_study_attempts, this is a real gap for routing rather than a stylistic one.

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