list_my_exams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by adding the authorization prerequisite ("Requires the exam results right") and the negative scope guarantee that it does not register for an exam — context an agent cannot get from the 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?

Four short sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded; nothing is buried. "Read-only" lightly duplicates readOnlyHint=true, a minor redundancy rather than a flaw.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers origin, authorization, and mutation scope adequately. It never indicates what an exam record contains (fields, ordering, result/grades availability), so the agent cannot anticipate the response shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter meaning to add. The description correctly spends no words on nonexistent inputs.

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 ("List exams") and qualifies the scope via the source endpoint pruefungenEigene ("own exams"), so it is clearly the personal exam list rather than a catalog. It does not name list_public_exams or another sibling to draw the contrast explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usefulness is implied rather than stated: the agent must have the exam results right, and the final sentence rules out one adjacent capability (registration). There is no explicit when-to-use condition and no named alternative such as list_public_exams for exam catalog browsing.

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