flag_at_risk_topics

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the prioritization logic but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or how 'prolonged neglect' is measured. This lack of detail is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 brief and front-loaded, using two sentences to convey purpose. The second sentence ('Prioritizes topics that need urgent intervention') somewhat restates the first, creating minor redundancy, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's core purpose. However, it omits details about return format and behavior when no risky topics exist, leaving it only minimally complete for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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 already fully documents the single studentId parameter with a clear description, so the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs 'Surface' and 'Prioritizes', identifying topics at risk due to low confidence, deadline pressure, or prolonged neglect. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_review_due or get_mastery_heatmap by focusing on urgent intervention. However, it could be slightly more explicit that it returns a list for a given student.

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 use when needing to identify urgent at-risk topics, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as get_review_due or suggest_review_plan. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the phrasing.

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