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 description does not need to restate these. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., response format, pagination, rate limits). It is adequate but does not enhance what the annotations already provide.

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, fully front-loaded, and contains no extraneous words. Every part of the sentence is informative: verb, resource, context, and optional filters.

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 complexity of the tool (8 parameters, analytic output) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'mastery distribution analytics' entails (e.g., counts per mastery level, hierarchy) or how the various filters interact. The description is adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth for effective agent invocation.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the tool's purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'mastery distribution analytics', and the context 'in a course, optionally filtered by students or outcomes'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_outcome_results or get_outcome_rollups, which serve different purposes (e.g., raw results vs. distribution analytics).

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 optional filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_outcome_rollups, get_outcome_results). The usage context is implied (analytics for mastery distribution), but there are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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