get_student_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the return structure and mentions the endpoint ':9090', but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization requirements, or error handling behavior (e.g., what happens if target_id is invalid). The addition of 'error_signals' adds useful context, but more behavioral clarity is needed for a complete picture.

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 concise, with only two sentences and a parameter list. It front-loads the core purpose and return format. Every piece of information is relevant, and there is no redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 has 2 parameters and an output schema (not shown but referenced by return format description), the description covers the essential: purpose, parameters, and return structure. It does not provide error handling or edge cases, but it is sufficient for typical use. The context of preparing lessons is included, which adds situational completeness.

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 provides explicit parameter descriptions beyond the schema: 'target_id: 对象 id（字符串）' and 'target_type: 'student'（默认）| 'class''. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable. The description adds default value and allowed values, making it easy for an agent to understand usage.

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 the tool fetches object details and portrait including error signals ('取对象详情 + 肖像（含 error_signals 易错库）'), and specifies the return format '{ok, target, profile}'. This distinguishes it from other tools like get_feedback_sheet or search_questions, as it is specifically for student profiles with error signal data.

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 mentions when to use this tool: before lesson preparation ('备课前读画像') and to view pending error signals after recycling ('看回收后新增的 pending 易错信号都走它'). While it does not list exclusions or alternatives, the context is clear and practical for an AI agent deciding on tool selection.

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