aeroedu_report_exam

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the report contents, offering transparency on what the tool returns beyond the safety profile.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the tool's purpose and efficiently provides essential usage guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately lists the report metrics. It does not cover potential error cases or format details, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete for a single-parameter tool.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'exam_id', and the description adds meaningful context by specifying that the exam_id should come from specific sibling tools, helping agents understand the parameter's origin.

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 explicitly states the tool generates an exam result analysis report, listing specific metrics such as average score, score distribution, per-question correct/incorrect ratio, Cronbach alpha, and highest/lowest scores. It also clarifies the source of the exam_id, distinguishing it from other exam-related tools.

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 provides clear guidance on obtaining the required exam_id from sibling tools 'aeroedu_exam_create' or 'aeroedu_exam_publish'. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context is sufficient given its unique report functionality.

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