get_progress_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only retrieval operation ('Get') and specifies what data is returned (confidence trends, study hours, etc.). It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or return format details, but for a simple analytics summary tool, the description sufficiently discloses its non-destructive nature and core output.

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 front-loads the action ('Get a progress analytics summary') and immediately lists the key components. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with only two parameters, both fully documented in the schema. The description explains what the summary includes, which is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's role. There is no output schema to clarify return values, but the description's enumeration of summary contents partially compensates. Overall, the description is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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%: both studentId and days have descriptive text in the input schema. The description adds context about the summary content but does not add additional meaning to the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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: to retrieve a progress analytics summary. It lists specific content areas (confidence trends, study hours, completed sessions, weak areas) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_mastery_heatmap or get_daily_briefing. The verb 'get' plus resource 'progress analytics summary' is specific and unambiguous.

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 by explaining what the summary includes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mastery_heatmap or get_daily_briefing. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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