get_subject_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It describes the returned fields but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens if the ID is invalid, or whether authentication is required. The verb 'Get' implies a safe read, but the description could be more transparent about error responses and side-effect-free behavior.

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 concise and information-dense: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists return fields and ID sources. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant wording.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, expected return content, and how to obtain the input ID. It lacks explicit error-handling or edge-case details, but those are not critical for this straightforward read operation.

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 provides no description for subject_id, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clarifying that the ID is numeric and points to which tool results contain such IDs, adding meaningful guidance 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 explicitly states it retrieves detailed information about a subject/discipline by numeric ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_teacher_info and list_tasks. It also lists the specific fields returned, making the purpose concrete and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by explaining that subject IDs are available from list_tasks, get_task, and list_materials. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for excluded cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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