get_session_notes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does declare 'Read-only' outright plus the important behavioural constraint that view ids are page-derived and must be taken from this tool's return value. It does not cover permission/auth requirements, whether some views may be empty or unavailable for a given school, or failure modes. The output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not owed here.

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?

Front-loads the resource and the returned items, then puts the parameter-provenance constraint last where it belongs. The enumeration of view names is dense but each term is load-bearing for the agent's expectations. Minor redundancy in repeating the 'ids this tool returns' point twice.

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?

Covers purpose, the two undocumented parameters' provenance, read-only safety, and the dependency on get_session_detail — enough for a two-parameter read tool with an output schema. What is missing is any statement about scope limits, such as whether a session with no notes returns empty structures or errors, and whether all listed views are always present.

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 0% and both parameters are bare strings, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that cgap and sessio are obtained from the attendance_link of get_session_detail rather than being arbitrary identifiers. It does not explain what cgap denotes structurally (class-group vs. course identifier) or validate format, so a small gap remains.

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 — read the per-student, non-attendance items for one class session — and enumerates exactly what is returned: homework status (fets / no fets / no demanats) plus note, free-text observation, the school's other views (Treball, Comportament, mobile use, reading) with their options, and the notify-family checkbox state. It is clearly separated from sibling writers such as mark_homework and add_observation, and it names get_session_detail as the upstream source.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: cgap and sessio must be taken from the attendance_link of get_session_detail, and view ids must be reused from this tool's own output rather than guessed. That is real routing and sequencing guidance. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' exclusion against siblings, which keeps it off a 5.

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