ic_list_behavior

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, establishing the read-only safety profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns FeatureDisabled when the behavior module is disabled, including the detection mechanism. 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?

The description is two compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the error condition stated efficiently. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain the success response shape or the fields of behavior events/referrals. It also leaves since/until semantics and required identifier formats undocumented, so an agent must infer important call details. The FeatureDisabled note is useful but does not close these gaps.

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 only 20%, covering just 'view', while the description adds no meaning for since, until, district, or studentId beyond their names. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented parameters and did not.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('a student's behavior events / referrals'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The resource itself distinguishes it from sibling list tools like ic_list_assessments and ic_list_attendance.

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 it should be used when behavior events or referrals are needed, and it flags the module-off condition. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance.

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