me.coaching_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'read-only, idempotent' and auth requirements, offering slight extra context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections for WHEN TO CALL, WHEN NOT TO CALL, BEHAVIOR. Each sentence provides value, no redundancy.

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?

Given no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully explains the return value (thin_stages list with stage slug, course slug, missing principles, evidence_count, coaching_note). No 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?

No parameters are defined, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and description does not need to add parameter information.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'stages in the caller's active course where recorded evidence is thin relative to the stage's principle requirements'. It uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like me.add_evidence.

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?

Explicitly provides when to call (e.g., 'what should I work on next') and when not to call ('to lecture the user on principles they have already satisfied; on every conversation turn'), plus pairing guidance with me.add_evidence.

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