whats_new

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's add-on is what matters: it discloses delta semantics ('since they last asked'), the 7-day default window on first check, and a prompt-injection warning about <sakai_content>. The injection warning is genuinely valuable behavioral context. It does not describe pagination or volume, but the output schema likely covers returns.

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, front-loaded with scope and content categories, followed by the window rule and the safety caveat. Every clause carries information and nothing is padding; the only minor cost is that the enumerated categories make the first sentence dense.

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 annotations carry the safety profile. With scope, delta behavior, first-check window, and an injection warning all covered, an agent has everything required to call this correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and mark_seen's own description ('Remember these items so they are not shown again') fully documents the parameter. The description's 'since they last asked' phrasing does reinforce the delta/mark-seen model, but it never names the parameter or explains that marking can be disabled, so it adds only marginal meaning over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb/resource: a change digest of the student's current courses, and enumerates exactly what it surfaces (announcements, assignments, grades, Resources files, deadlines). This aggregate scope implicitly separates it from single-category siblings like get_announcements and get_my_grades, but it never names those alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'since they last asked' delta framing and the 7-day first-check window tell the agent this is a recurring catch-up call, not a one-off query. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_upcoming_deadlines or get_announcements, and no 'when-not-to-use' statement.

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