get_mastery_review_settings

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 the specific term 'desired retention' but discloses no additional behavior such as error handling, authentication, or pagination. Since the tool is a simple read, the annotation coverage plus minimal specificity yields a mid-range score.

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 with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, which is ideal for a simple read operation.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It could clarify what 'desired retention' means or indicate what the response contains, but the output schema presumably handles return details. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with path_id described as 'Mastery path ID'. The description does not add any further meaning to the parameter, such as format, examples, or constraints. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('a path's desired retention'), which aligns with the tool name. It distinguishes from write tools like set_mastery_review_settings but doesn't explicitly contrast with other read tools like get_mastery_path, leaving slight ambiguity about its unique scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to prefer it over get_mastery_path or other getters, or any context such as requiring an existing path. The agent must infer usage from the name and description.

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