list_students_needing_attention

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying the output is a factual report with exact signals and thresholds. It also notes permission requirements. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The most critical information (purpose, permissions, output nature) is front-loaded and succinct.

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 high schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, permissions, and output nature. It could mention return format but is sufficient for an informative tool.

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 the description doesn't add specific parameter details beyond the schema. The overall context of thresholds and signals helps interpret parameters indirectly, but not enough to exceed baseline 3.

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 specifies the tool reports students needing attention based on inactivity, missing/late submissions, and low score. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_students' or 'get_missing_submissions'.

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 'Requires instructor/TA permissions', providing a clear prerequisite. It also contrasts with prediction tools by stating it's a factual report. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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