progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool surfaces history and mentions that the 'detail' flag includes per-attempt rows. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, using two short paragraphs to convey purpose, usage, and parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one boolean parameter, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, and what the parameter controls. It is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention edge cases or exclusions.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'detail' parameter includes per-attempt rows, which gives meaning beyond the bare schema. Still, it does not clarify what the default (false) returns or the exact format, so compensation is partial.

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 identifies the tool as providing the candidate's history, including weakest areas, repeated mistakes, and recent attempts. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'show', the noun-phrase description is specific and distinguishes it from siblings that handle audio, cases, or scoring.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: to recommend practice topics and to open a session with specific references to past performance. It provides a concrete example, giving clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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