kreta_class_groups

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

The annotations already provide a strong safety profile: readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'retrieval' wording is consistent with these annotations, but it adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, filtering effects, or what the 'child' parameter changes about the result.

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 a single efficient sentence that communicates the core action and resource without redundancy. However, it is so terse that it leaves out essential parameter and usage context, which prevents a top score.

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 an output schema present and two optional parameters, the tool is not highly complex, but the description lacks enough context for correct invocation: the meaning of 'child' is unexplained and no usage guidance distinguishes this from many similar kreta_* siblings. The annotations cover safety, but not semantics.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the two parameters ('child' and 'limit') have no semantic descriptions in the schema. The description does not compensate: it never explains what 'child' represents, how 'limit' applies, or what values are acceptable. An agent cannot confidently determine parameter meaning from this definition.

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 uses a specific verb ('lekérése' – retrieval) and a specific resource ('a tanuló osztályainak és csoportjainak' – the student's classes and groups), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like kreta_student_profile or kreta_class_averages, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the sibling list, nor exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria. The only clue is the resource name itself, making usage implied rather than explicitly guided.

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