get_grades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the call is scoped to the authenticated user's own grades, and the returned record includes weight, range, feedback and grading time, which stands in for the absent output schema. Gaps remain around invalid course_id handling, ordering, and any permission prerequisites.

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 dense but front-loaded sentence: the verb and resource lead, the no-argument case follows, then the with-argument case. Every clause adds information the agent needs and none repeats schema data.

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?

A single optional parameter with no output schema is fully covered: the description explains both invocation modes and the shape of the returned data. There is nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly that is 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter — and it does, explaining that course_id comes from list_courses and that supplying it switches the result from course-level finals to item-level detail. Only the type/default are left to the schema, which handles them adequately.

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?

A specific verb ('Return') plus resource ('the user's grades'), and it goes further by enumerating the two distinct output modes: final grades for all courses vs. per-item grades for one course. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like list_courses, which is instead cited as the source of the course_id.

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 gives an explicit branching rule keyed to the presence or absence of course_id, and names list_courses as the prerequisite step for obtaining that value. It does not state exclusions or when a different tool would be preferable, but no sibling covers grades, so the routing guidance is effectively complete.

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