what_if_cgpa_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It does not disclose whether this tool mutates data, requires authentication, or has limitations (e.g., only for current semester). Output schema exists but description lacks behavioral context beyond the calculation.

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 wasted words. First sentence defines purpose, second sentence provides input format. Front-loaded 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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Input format is explained. However, missing context about when this tool is applicable (e.g., requires previous CGPA data, only works for current semester) and error conditions.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds example JSON format with grade and credits, compensating for the schema gap. However, it does not specify valid grade values or credit range constraints.

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?

Description clearly states 'Calculate projected CGPA with hypothetical grades', specifying the verb 'calculate' and the resource 'CGPA'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cgpa which return actual CGPA.

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?

Description implies usage for hypothetical scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cgpa. No mention of prerequisites or excluded cases.

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