kreta_student_profile

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these. It adds the useful scope that the operation targets the logged-in student, but it discloses no extra behavioral details such as authentication requirements or error behavior. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the action and resource clearly, and 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?

For a simple read-only profile-fetch tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the completely unexplained 'child' parameter, which introduces ambiguity about whether the tool can retrieve another student's profile or whether it always targets the logged-in user.

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?

The only parameter, 'child', has zero schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. An agent is left without any explanation of what 'child' means, whether it is relevant for a logged-in student, or when it should be provided.

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 the specific verb 'lekérése' (retrieval) and resource 'a bejelentkezett tanuló adatlapja' (the logged-in student's profile). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling kreta_guardian_profile, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 'bejelentkezett tanuló' implies the tool is for fetching the currently logged-in student's own profile, giving a clear general usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as kreta_guardian_profile, and mentions no exclusions or alternatives.

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