get_graduation_standard

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it reveals progressive-disclosure behavior (result shape changes with parameter count), that the division level includes credit statistics, and that the deepest level returns graduation thresholds. It does not mention authentication requirements or whether missing combinations error or return empty, which keeps it below a 5.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then uses an indented mapping block that is far more scannable than prose would be. Every line carries information; the matric code list is compact and there is no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description covers the parameter layering and enum values that matter most. The remaining gap is the year format (e.g. academic year like 112) and whether division is a name or a code, which an agent must infer from the previous level's output.

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 no parameter has an enum, so the description must compensate — and it does, fully enumerating all eleven matric codes (7=四技, 6=二技, 8=碩士班, etc.) and explaining the semantic effect of each parameter level. Only division lacks an enumerated value set, but those values are discoverable from the prior call level, which the description implies.

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 ("取得課程標準（畢業科目表）") and immediately defines the three distinct result scopes driven by parameter count. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get_course_list or get_course_syllabus, which return individual courses rather than a graduation requirement table.

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 tiered return table implicitly tells the agent how to proceed: call with year alone to enumerate matric values, then add matric to get divisions, then add division for the full curriculum. However, it never explicitly says when not to use this tool or names an alternative sibling, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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