get_student_progress

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. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation and the returned data is named, which is honest and non-contradictory. But it does not define what 'recent' or 'open' mean, describe the return shape, or note behavior on an invalid/unknown student_id. Adequate but thin for an operation with zero annotation coverage.

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, zero filler. The purpose sentence is front-loaded with verb, resource, and key; the second sentence adds the prerequisite. 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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: it names what is returned, the required input, and the prerequisite. Minor gaps remain — no return-structure description (which a simple tool can tolerate) and no definition of 'recent'/'open' timeframes — but nothing critical blocks correct 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% — the schema already documents student_id as 'The student's id, from list_students', including its source. The description's 'by student id' and 'Use list_students first' only reinforce what the schema already states, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') plus a concrete resource ('a student's recent session notes and open homework') keyed by student id. The scope is unambiguous and easily distinguished from siblings: it retrieves existing data, unlike log_session_note and assign_homework (writes) and generate_progress_report (report generation).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the prerequisite: 'Use list_students first if you don't know the id.' This gives clear context for calling the tool correctly. It does not, however, mention when to prefer generate_progress_report or log_session_note instead, so some alternative routing is left to inference.

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