Get AlmaEsami Exam Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (external changes possible). The description confirms read-only behavior and adds that it does not book exams, which is consistent. No additional behavioral details like error handling or rate limits are provided, but the annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 two sentences long with no repetition or filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose and content, the second clarifies read-only nature. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description lists the return fields (activities, CFU, status, bookable). The tool is straightforward (no nested objects, no enums, 0 required params). However, the missing base_url parameter description and lack of mention of pagination or limits prevent a perfect score.

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 67% (cookies and session_id have descriptions, base_url does not). The description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. For the uncovered parameter (base_url), there is no compensation. Baseline for this coverage level is around 3.

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 uses the verb 'reads' and specifies the resource 'AlmaEsami exam plan (Riepilogo Esami)', listing what it contains (activities, CFU, status, bookable). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like almaesami_get_exam_history (history) and almaesami_list_appelli (list sessions).

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 only states 'Read-only; does not book exams,' which implicitly indicates not to use for booking. However, it does not provide explicit comparisons to sibling tools or conditions for use. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus almaesami_get_exam_history or almaesami_list_appelli.

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