kreta_homework_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description only restates the basic retrieval behavior and adds no extra behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or output characteristics. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, then specifies the input source. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists to describe the return value, and annotations cover the safety behavior. However, the child parameter is undocumented and the UID parameter is only vaguely referenced in natural language, leaving an agent to guess parameter semantics. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'UID' in natural language, hinting at the homework_uid parameter, but it does not explicitly map to the parameter name, and the 'child' parameter is entirely unexplained. This is a notable gap in a two-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('lekérése' – retrieval) and resource ('házi feladat részletei' – homework details), and adds that it works from a UID obtained from a list, which differentiates it from the list-oriented kreta_homework sibling. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool, 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?

The phrase 'a listából kapott UID alapján' gives clear usage context: this tool should be used after obtaining a UID from a homework list, implying the list sibling is for listing and this one for details. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions explicitly, but the context is strong enough.

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