PAIDEIA__import_exam_radar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It says the tool imports data into specific files but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting, file creation), required permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. This leaves the agent guessing about critical behavioral traits.

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 only three sentences and short, but the first two sentences are repetitive (stating it is an alias and instructing to use the exact name). The core purpose is in the last sentence, which is acceptable but not optimally front-loaded. Some redundancy reduces efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, one required, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'Exam Radar' is, what format 'export_md' should be in, the role of 'course_name', or what 'gold-zone weakmap' means. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool correctly.

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 description makes no mention of any parameters, despite the schema having 3 parameters with only 33% coverage from schema descriptions. The required 'export_md' and optional 'course_name' are entirely unexplained. The description fails to add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states it imports Exam Radar into specific files (radar.md, coverage.md annotation, gold-zone weakmap), which is clear about the action and resources. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'import_exam_radar' other than calling itself an alias, so the distinction is weak.

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 only gives a naming instruction ('Use this exact name...') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'import_exam_radar' or other PAIDEIA tools. There is no statement of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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