get_mastery_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is server-estimated and implies a read-only action, but does not mention return shape, whether it reports per-node or whole-session knowledge, session validity requirements, or any side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence conveys the core operation with no filler. It is concise but somewhat under-specified, which keeps it below a 5.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important context missing: what a 'knowledge state' contains, how the optional node_id affects results, and how this relates to the review/scheduling/assessment siblings. An agent could call it with the right session_id but cannot anticipate the response.

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 0% and the description mentions neither session_id nor node_id. It fails to explain that session_id identifies the learner session and node_id optionally scopes the query to a specific node, with null likely meaning the whole knowledge state.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource as 'server-estimated learner knowledge state,' making the operation's intent clear. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling read tools like get_review_state or get_knowledge_nodes, so it loses the top score.

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 provided about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_review_state or get_learning_metrics, nor any conditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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