get_mastery_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating what is included in the read (outline, revision, reviews), giving the agent a concrete expectation of the response content. This goes beyond the minimalist annotation coverage and clarifies the tool's operational scope.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with zero fluff. The core action and resource are placed at the start, and the optional content qualifiers ('including outline, revision and reviews') follow naturally. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one clearly documented parameter and a read-only annotation pair, the description is nearly complete. The output schema exists and is expected to describe return values, so the description does not need to explain them. It could arguably mention error behavior (e.g., not found), but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the parameter 'path_id' is already documented as 'Mastery path ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or format constraints beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 begins with a clear verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('Mastery Path'), and specifies the scope ('including outline, revision and reviews'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_mastery_paths (which lists paths) and get_mastery_objective (which targets objectives). No ambiguity remains about what the tool retrieves.

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 implies usage: when you need a single mastery path's details, use this. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list_mastery_paths to enumerate paths' or 'use get_mastery_objective for objectives'. The context is understandable but not maximally instructive for distinguishing among close siblings.

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