ic_list_grades

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds a little context by mentioning both term grades and in-progress course grades, but it does not disclose pagination, empty-result behavior, or response-shape details beyond what the view parameter already covers.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the resource immediately, making it easy to scan.

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 simple read-only list tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, the core invocation is mostly clear from the required parameters. However, the lack of differentiation from ic_list_recent_grades and the absence of any termId guidance leave a meaningful gap for tool selection and correct filtering.

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 25%, with only 'view' fully documented. The short description gives some context for studentId and termId ('a student's term grades'), but it does not clarify the meaning of in-progress course grades, whether termId is a filter or required for some modes, or what district refers to beyond its name.

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 names a specific action ('List') and a clear resource ('a student's term grades and in-progress course grades'), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. However, it does not differentiate this from the closely named sibling ic_list_recent_grades, leaving some ambiguity about which grade-list tool to prefer.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ic_list_recent_grades, ic_list_assignments, or ic_list_assessments. The description also does not explain when termId should be provided despite it being optional in the schema.

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