get_credit_summary_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states the output (total credits and breakdown) but does not mention data freshness, permissions required, or any side effects. Given the tool is a simple read operation with no parameters, the level of transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond the bare minimum.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides essential detail. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main function and output types. However, it could improve by mentioning that the output schema provides further details, but since the schema exists, the description does not need to reiterate return structure.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The tool takes no arguments, making parameter semantics trivial. A score of 4 reflects the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 the tool retrieves a credit summary with total credits and breakdown by type (core, elective, lab, etc.). The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'credit summary' makes the purpose explicit, and the mention of breakdown types distinguishes it from other academic tools like 'get_cgpa' or 'get_grades'.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools. The lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer applicability on its own.

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