get_mastery_objective

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to re-establish the safety profile. It adds the conceptual read scope ('evidence, mastery and review state') but does not disclose further behavioral details such as pagination, auth requirements, or response semantics.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, object, and scope with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool reads.

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?

For a simple read operation with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. The required parameters are fully specified, and the read scope is explicit, so no material details are missing.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description is not burdened with explaining path_id or knowledge_point_id. It adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the exact resource: one knowledge point's evidence, mastery, and review state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_mastery_path or get_mastery_review_settings, which target different resources or scopes.

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 phrase 'one knowledge point's evidence, mastery and review state' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: retrieving per-knowledge-point mastery data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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