analyze_section_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares 'Read-only', explains caching behavior via forceRefresh, and describes return value structure ('ranked sections with averages and relative standing; SJ is summarised separately').

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?

Three sentences: purpose and scope, usage with alternative, and parameter/behavior details. Front-loaded with most important info, no wasted words.

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 output schema, the description fully explains return values. It covers read-only, caching, mock filtering, and the distinction between cognitive sections and SJ. All relevant context is present.

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 100% and already describes kind and forceRefresh. The description adds value by stating default values ('default all') and behavioral effects ('bypasses cache'), which goes 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 'Rank VR, DM, and QR strengths and weaknesses from completed Medify UCAT mocks' and specifies both the verb (rank) and the resource (sections from completed mocks). It distinguishes from analyze_topic_performance by noting it does not break down question subtypes.

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 says 'Use to answer “which section is weakest?” before recommending drills.' and provides a clear alternative: 'use analyze_topic_performance for that' when question subtype breakdown is needed.

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