list_feedback_sheets

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

Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It reveals the output format, ordering (newest first), owner isolation, and three filtering parameters. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the context implies it. Overall, good behavioral disclosure.

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 yet informative, with a clear structure: purpose, output fields, usage guidelines, parameter list. The use of emoji and breaks aids readability, though it could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 three optional parameters, no required ones, and an output schema (which is not detailed but the description lists key fields), the description covers use cases, output structure, and filtering options adequately. It leaves little ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 zero description coverage, but the description adds meaning for all three parameters: target_id (optional), keyword (fuzzy title match), batch_key (filter to specific batch PRD-010). This compensates well for the schema's lack of 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 the tool lists feedback sheets under the current teacher with owner isolation, returning {ok, rows, total}. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_feedback_sheet (likely single fetch) and upsert_feedback_sheet (create/update) by focusing on listing and retrieval.

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 provides explicit usage guidance with red markers: use this to find a target ID before editing to avoid duplicates, and check the latest batch and lesson sequence before continuing to the next lesson to set the correct lesson_seq. This clarity on when and why to use the tool is exemplary.

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