Get Outcome

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

The description is minimal and does not add behavioral details beyond the annotations. The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already indicate safety and openness, but the description does not elaborate on what 'full details' entails or potential caveats. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 that directly conveys the purpose. It contains no redundant information or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 description provides a basic understanding of the tool but does not elaborate on return structure or edge cases. Given the absence of an output schema, it is acceptable, but it could benefit from mentioning what constitutes 'full details' (e.g., including criteria, mastery levels, etc.) to better guide the agent.

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 schema descriptions for outcome_id and add_defaults are clear and complete. The tool description does not add any extra meaning to these parameters, so it meets the baseline. No additional clarification is needed since the schema already covers them.

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 tool's function: retrieving full details for a specific learning outcome by its ID. It includes a verb (get) and a resource (learning outcome), making it unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_outcome_group or get_outcome_alignments by focusing on a single outcome.

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 implies usage: when you have an outcome ID, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like listing outcomes or retrieving outcome groups, nor does it specify when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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