Get a tutor hint

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: each level's disclosure scope, the guarantee that no level gives the fix, the maximum level in hint-only mode, and guidance to phrase the hint as a question. These details materially shape how an agent should use the tool.

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 dense but well structured, opening with the core action and then adding level meanings, input selection, escalation guidance, and mode behavior. Every sentence contributes to correct selection or invocation.

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 five-parameter read-only hint tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: which identifier to pass, what each level reveals, escalation discipline, and hint-only mode limits. An agent has enough information to call and use it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the level parameter and for choosing code versus ref. It does not elaborate on device or interface beyond what the schema already says, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: retrieving a hint for a finding from diagnose, with three defined levels. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like diagnose and run_command by framing it as pedagogical hint retrieval rather than diagnosis or command execution.

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?

It explicitly says when to use code versus ref, especially for redacted findings, and describes the escalation policy: start at level 1 and only go up after the student has tried and remains stuck. It also states the hint-only mode ceiling of level 2, which is a concrete usage constraint.

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