parse_exam_radar_export

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 only states the input format but does not mention whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or what it returns.

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 a single sentence with no waste, but it is too sparse for a tool with no output schema or annotations. Some additional detail on expected usage or output would be appropriate.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the parsed result looks like or how it can be used, which is essential for a parsing tool.

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 no parameter description (0% coverage), and the tool description adds minimal detail beyond stating the export type. The single parameter 'export_md' is not explained in terms of format or expected content.

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 parses an OPTIMETA Exam Radar exam-radar:v1 markdown export, specifying the exact format. However, it does not explain what the output of parsing is, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like import_exam_radar or parse_paideia_repo. The description lacks contextual usage instructions.

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