recommend_focus_areas

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: 'Read-only', 'Returns ordered recommendations with reasons/suggestions plus a short summary', and 'Does not create Medify practice sets'.

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 focused sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.

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 4 optional params and no output schema, description covers what is returned and what is not done. Sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke.

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%, but description adds meaning for kind ('filters mocks'), includeSj ('defaults true for SJ advice'), and targetTotal ('adds a gap recommendation'). forceRefresh not elaborated, but overall useful.

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?

Description states 'Recommend prioritised UCAT practice focus areas from mock history' – a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_topic_performance and analyze_question_timing.

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 for a practice plan' and suggests calling analyze_topic_performance and/or analyze_question_timing for evidence. Also clarifies kind filtering, includeSj default, and targetTotal usage.

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