grades_verify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job: it explicitly states 'reads only', discloses the authentication requirement, and explains the compare-and-verify behavior. It could add more about output format or failure behavior, but the core safety profile is clearly disclosed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and read-only nature are front-loaded, and the token requirement is placed at the end as a necessary caveat. It is slightly long-winded in the middle clause, but every sentence 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, timing, input scope, read-only behavior, and authentication constraints. It does not describe the return value or mismatch-handling behavior, but the available context is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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%, so the schema already documents path, items, and courseid. The description adds useful context like 'ready row' and the post-import framing, but it does not materially expand parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 names a specific action — double-checking after import — and a specific resource: comparing lecturer file rows against Moodle's gradebook. It clearly identifies the tool as read-only verification, which distinguishes it from writing tools like grade_submission. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context: it is used after import, for ready rows in lecturer files, to verify marks and feedback against Moodle. It also gives an important prerequisite and exclusion: the token must be allowed to read the user grade report, and a lecturer's token usually is not. It does not explicitly say when to use a different tool instead.

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