get_mastery_heatmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format ('courses with their concepts and confidence scores') but does not mention read-only nature, data freshness, prerequisites, or potential edge cases. Meets a basic threshold but leaves gaps.

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 short sentences, both informative and front-loaded with the key action and output. No fluff or redundant phrasing; every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, output structure, and intended widget context. It lacks explicit usage alternatives, but overall provides sufficient context for selection and invocation.

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 describes the only parameter (studentId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, only clarifies the output structure. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mastery data organized by course'), explicitly stating the tool's purpose for the mastery heatmap widget. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_progress_summary or get_concept.

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 usage context ('for the mastery heatmap widget') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or mention related tools. It's adequate but lacks direct guidance.

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