ic_list_assessments

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description complements this by revealing important behavioral details: calendarID is auto-resolved from each enrollment, one entry is returned per enrollment, and field shapes vary by district/test type with pass-through. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 carry substantial meaning: the first states the core purpose, the second discloses response granularity and variability. No wasted words; the critical behavioral info is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably covers return semantics (one entry per enrollment, pass-through of variable fields). It also surfaces the key hidden behavior of auto-resolving calendarID. A small gap remains around empty responses or error handling, but given the tool's read-only simplicity, the description is sufficiently 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 coverage is 67% with a detailed description for 'view' and 'studentId', but 'district' is required and undocumented in both schema and description. The description's mention of auto-resolving calendarID clarifies how studentId is used, but it does not fully compensate for the missing district semantics.

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 ('List') and resource ('a student's standardized test scores'), naming state, national, and district tests. It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like ic_list_assignments or ic_list_grades.

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 purpose strongly implies when to use this tool (when standardized test scores are needed), and the description adds context about auto-resolving calendarID per enrollment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to an alternative, so usage guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.

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