List Grading Standards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the return structure (array of objects with specific fields) and the admin requirement for account_id. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent set expectations.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence adds value—purpose, parameter usage, and return format. No fluff or redundancy.

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 covers the key aspects: what it lists, the two mutually exclusive parameter paths, admin requirement, and return structure. It does not address what happens if no parameter is provided, but for a simple list tool with no output schema and good annotation coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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%, and the description essentially repeats the schema's info about mutual exclusivity and admin access. It does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 tool lists grading standards, and specifies two broad contexts: course or account. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_grading_standard and apply_grading_standard_to_course by the 'list' verb and the context parameter.

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?

It explicitly says to provide either course_id or account_id, and explains what each returns. It also notes admin access for account_id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like creating or applying standards, but the distinction from create/apply is inherently clear from the verb 'list'.

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