students_at_risk

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses cross-course aggregation, the two-signal ranking rule, and per-source readability caveats. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe output fields, but the 'could be read' framing implies a safe reporting 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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the matching criteria, the second explains ranking and accessibility caveats. The core information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential contract: criteria, aggregation, ranking, and source-readability limits. It stops short of specifying the exact output representation or how source readability is reported, but enough is present for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The narrative reinforces the roles of max_absences and pass_mark but adds no new facts beyond the schema; search and lates_per_absence are only documented in the schema.

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 concrete deliverable – a per-student list across every course – and defines it by three explicit risk signals: absences over the limit, overdue unhanded assignments, and failing marks. This uniquely separates it from single-source siblings like attendance_report, missing, or gradebook, even without naming them.

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?

It provides useful context for use, such as the ranking rule and token limitations (lecturer token usually cannot read the gradebook; attendance requires mod_attendance_* functions). However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives like missing, gradebook, or attendance_report, or when not to use it.

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