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 agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it does not explain return format, aggregation details, or potential performance implications. Since annotations carry the safety burden, the description's contribution is adequate but not rich, meriting a 3.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the tool's core function. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for its 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 (all explained in schema) and no output schema, the description could have provided more context about expected return values or how parameters interact. However, for a simple read-only analytics tool, the description is minimally sufficient—it names the resource and filters. Still, the lack of output description and interplay hints leaves some gaps, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 each of the 8 parameters is already clearly documented in the schema. The tool description only reiterates the optional filters ('optionally filtered by students or outcomes') without adding syntax, examples, or relationships between parameters. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that baseline.

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 purpose: 'Get mastery distribution analytics for outcomes in a course, optionally filtered by students or outcomes.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling outcome tools like get_outcome_results or get_outcome_rollups by focusing on 'mastery 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool might be more appropriate. The only hint is the verb 'Get' and the mention of optional filters, which does not help in tool selection.

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