get_marks

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context: it discloses the NOT_AUTHENTICATED sentinel, the login prerequisite, the env-var credential fallback, and what to do if credentials are missing. It does not describe rate limits or detailed return structure, but far exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 authentication flow instructions are front-loaded and actionable, but the sentence structure is dense and repetitive—it explains 'login' behavior at length within a tool that primarily fetches marks. The core purpose is stated first, but roughly half the text is about authentication mechanics better suited to the login tool description.

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 single-param read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the resource, the optional param behavior, and the auth recovery path. It could benefit from clarifying how this differs from sibling grade tools, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents semesterId including format and default behavior. The description merely restates that semesterId is optional and can be omitted for current semester, which aligns exactly with the schema description without adding new syntax or edge-case detail. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get internal marks/assessment scores') and even enumerates the returned fields (component-wise marks, weightage, status). It distinguishes the resource from siblings like get_grade_history and get_semester_grades implicitly, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context for the auth-recovery flow (call get_captcha then login then retry on NOT_AUTHENTICATED), which routes the agent to specific alternatives. It also notes semesterId is optional and to omit for current semester. However, it does not differentiate this tool from grade-related siblings like get_grade_history.

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