List the pedagogical strategies available for the tutoring engine's policy engine. Use this to identify which teaching methods can be applied to learning scenarios.
List the pedagogical strategies available to the policy engine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only restates that the tool lists strategies and adds the policy-engine scope; it does not disclose return format, whether the list is dynamic, or any other operational details.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list operation and every word contributes to the meaning.
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 very simple zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally sufficient to select and invoke it. However, without an output schema it omits the return structure, and it gives no relationship to sibling policy tools, leaving some gaps.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and nothing in the description detracts from that.
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 ('List'), resource ('pedagogical strategies'), and scope ('available to the policy engine'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast it with similar siblings like get_available_actions, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation bar.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria. With many sibling tools around policy evaluation, an agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.