kopern_run_grading

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description only adds 'Uses YOUR API keys.' It does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, error handling, or the structure of returned scores. With no output schema, more detail is needed.

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 short with two sentences, but the second sentence is redundant ('Executes... evaluates... returns...'). Slightly more concise phrasing would improve it.

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 no output schema and the complexity of grading (returns detailed scores), the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention the result format, prerequisites (e.g., suite must exist), or how to handle errors. The annotation openWorldHint suggests side effects but these are not explained.

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% and the description simply restates 'agent_id' and 'suite_id' without additional context. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (run), resource (grading suite on agent), and outcome (executes test cases, evaluates with criteria, returns scores). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like kopern_create_grading_suite and kopern_get_grading_results.

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 description mentions 'Uses YOUR API keys' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like kopern_get_grading_results or kopern_create_grading_suite. It lacks context on prerequisites or typical invocation scenarios.

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