list_board_degrees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose 'Read-only,' which is the key safety trait for a list tool, but says nothing about auth requirements, whether results are cached/static reference data, or ordering. Adequate but thin for zero 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no redundant restatement of the name. The mid-sentence 'Read-only.' fragment is slightly awkward but costs nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and with no parameters the surface is small. The description covers purpose and scope sufficiently; it would only be stronger if it clarified the relationship to list_degrees.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool is a 4. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List degree types for board application forms') and scopes it to external applicants via the board form. It distinguishes itself functionally from the similarly named list_degrees sibling, but never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer which degree list is appropriate.

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?

'Provides the degree dropdown options shown to external applicants' implies the context (public board forms rather than internal admin), which is useful. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of list_degrees as the alternative for internal degree lookups, leaving routing to inference.

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