ic_list_attendance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict (it uses 'List', a read operation). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it auto-resolves enrollmentID from the student record, which could affect failure modes, and it groups results by term. This enriches the agent's understanding of the operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the key behavioral nuance (auto-resolving enrollmentID). No filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what data is returned (absences/tardies), the aggregation (per-course, by term), and a critical internal step (enrollmentID resolution). Combined with schema details for filters and view, this is sufficiently complete, though it does not describe return field structure or any limits, which are less critical here.

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 60% (view, since, until have descriptions; district and studentId do not). The tool description does not add parameter explanations beyond the schema. Since coverage is moderate and the two undocumented parameters are self-explanatory by name, the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('a student's absences and tardies'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('per-course summary grouped by term') that sets it apart from sibling tools like ic_list_attendance_events. It also mentions auto-resolving enrollmentID, hinting at internal behavior, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for summary-level attendance data ('per-course summary') but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like ic_list_attendance_events or other list tools. There is no 'when-not' guidance or naming of alternatives, so the context is clear but not explicit.

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