Get Outcome Mastery Distribution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail—optional filtering by students or outcomes—but does not disclose output shape, pagination, or how 'mastery distribution' is computed. 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 sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the optional filtering is stated clearly right after the main purpose.

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 the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and several complex options like alignment distributions and exclusions, the description is minimal but minimally sufficient for basic invocation: it names the resource and the required course scope. However, it does not explain what 'mastery distribution' means, what the response contains, or how the optional alignment parameters fit in, so an agent could still be uncertain about expected output.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the generic filter concept ('filtered by students or outcomes') and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('mastery distribution analytics for outcomes in a course') and mentions optional filters. It is clear at a high level, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like get_outcome_rollups or get_outcome_contributing_scores.

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 gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The intended context is only implied by the tool's name and the phrase 'mastery distribution analytics', which is not enough to disambiguate among the many outcome-related analytics siblings.

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