web_list_children

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful output context ('flatet ut', includes school and group names), but it does not state read-only/authentication behavior, pagination, or other operational traits. Given the output schema exists, return details are partly covered elsewhere.

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 short and front-loads the main action: listing children with key identifiers. The remaining sentences add relevant field and usage context without excessive repetition, though the phrasing is slightly fragmented.

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 list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and returned identifiers. Still, with no annotations and an existing sibling named list_children, the definition does not resolve tool-selection ambiguity or provide enough operational context for confident invocation.

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 has zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description mentions childId and organizationalUnitId, but these appear to be output fields rather than call arguments.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing children with childId and organizationalUnitId, flattened, and returning school/group names. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling list_children, leaving the agent unsure which list tool to choose.

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 provides implied usage context by noting that organizationalUnitId is needed for timetable, consent, and assessment, while childId is used everywhere. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison against the sibling list_children.

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