list_simdasi_subjects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and mentions a required code, but does not state that it is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid codes, whether the response is paginated, or what format the subjects/chapters take. This minimal disclosure leaves significant behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 sentences long, with the primary action front-loaded and the prerequisite stated in the second sentence. No redundant or fluff content; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 one-parameter listing tool, the description covers the core purpose and input requirement. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves gaps around expected return values and error behavior. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'wilayah' parameter as a '7-digit MFD code of the area (province/regency)' (100% schema coverage). The description adds the source of the code ('from list_simdasi_provinces') and reinforces that it is required, but this is marginal added value beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's function: 'List SIMDASI subjects/chapters available for a specific area.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource (SIMDASI subjects/chapters), and adds scope ('for a specific area'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_simdasi_tables and list_simdasi_master_tables.

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 provides a specific prerequisite: 'Requires a 7-digit MFD wilayah code from list_simdasi_provinces.' This tells the agent where to obtain a valid input and implies the tool is for area-specific subject listing. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_simdasi_tables_by_subject, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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