me.learning_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds complementary behavioral details: 'Auth: Bearer <token> (any plan, including basic)', 'read-only, idempotent', and lists return fields. While the annotations cover the core safety profile, the description enriches context with authentication requirements and return structure.

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 structured into clear sections (purpose, when to call, when not to call, behavior, auth, returns). It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly verbose but not wasteful; every sentence adds value. A 4 reflects good conciseness and structure.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, authentication, and return fields. It fully covers what the agent needs to correctly select and invoke this 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?

There are no parameters (0 parameters, 100% schema coverage). The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no additional semantic value is required beyond the schema.

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 'the caller's Blueprint learning-path state' with specific fields (current course slug, stage progress, certification status, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'me.coaching_context' by its explicit purpose of answering 'where am I' and 'am I Capstone-eligible' questions.

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 explicit WHEN TO CALL scenarios (user asks 'where am I', 'what's next', 'am I Capstone-eligible', before suggesting next-step coaching) and WHEN NOT TO CALL (as a heartbeat, for another user's progress). This clearly guides the agent on appropriate invocation.

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