cx_s_get_study_records

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only 'view' operation and mentions that data is parsed from a menu page, but it does not disclose auth requirements, failure behavior, side effects, or whether a prior login/session is needed. The description adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 compact sentence with no filler; the main purpose is front-loaded and the source detail is placed in parentheses. It is concise, though it could have used the brevity to add more parameter or usage context.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, output schema present), but the definition still leaves the crucial input courseRef unexplained and gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over its many siblings. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call without additional inference.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, courseRef, and the description never explains what values it expects or how it relates to the query. The property name 'courseRef' gives some hint, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb ('查看' / view) and resource ('课程学习记录' / course study records), and it adds the source page (menu '学习记录/统计'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cx_s_list_learning_courses, but the resource and name are specific enough to convey intent.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cx_s_list_learning_courses, nor any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or expected context. The parenthetical about page parsing is an implementation note, not a usage guideline.

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