PAIDEIA__course_phase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool 'returns' data, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety or side effects. It also does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or any destructive potential. The disclosure is partial.

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 consists of two concise sentences that convey identity, usage, and return value without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns and that it derives data from artifacts. However, it does not clarify the relationship with the sibling 'course_phase' (whether they are identical or have differences), nor does it specify prerequisites or error conditions. Given the simple tool signature, it is mostly complete.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter (project_root) with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the description is not required to add much, but it contributes nothing.

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 it is an alias for course_phase and specifies the return values: course phase, days_until_exam, top_miss_pattern. However, it does not differentiate how this alias differs from its sibling tool 'course_phase', which could lead to confusion about when to use which.

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 a specific usage instruction: 'Use this exact name when Alt searches for PAIDEIA__course_phase.' This provides context for invocation but lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to the non-aliased sibling. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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