klax_link_assignment_to_materials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: how the decomposition works, whether it actually modifies anything (it appears read-only but not stated), the reliability of the mapping, or the format of the response. For a tool that likely requires indexed materials (prerequisite: materials must be indexed), it doesn't mention this dependency. An agent might call it without knowing materials need to be pre-indexed.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly structured to separate purpose from parameter implications, but it is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (mapping assignment to slides) and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks critical context. It doesn't explain the necessity of having indexed materials (a prerequisite likely satisfied by klax_index_learning_material). It doesn't clarify the role of top_k_per_req or the output format. There are sibling tools like klax_build_assignment_checklist that seem related, and the description doesn't differentiate. Overall, an agent would have many unknowns.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions course_id and assignment_text implicitly as inputs, but doesn't clarify their formats. The third parameter, top_k_per_req, is not mentioned at all. The description doesn't explain how 'top_k_per_req' affects output. This is a significant gap because the parameter is non-obvious and has a default. The baseline for 0% coverage is high, and the description barely compensates.

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 clearly states the tool's function: decomposing assignment text and mapping to relevant slides from indexed materials. It specifies the input (assignment explanation) and output (mapped slides). It distinguishes itself from materials list or search tools by focusing on linking assignment to specific slides. However, it could be more explicit about the exact output structure, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 implies that it is used when a user has an assignment and needs to find relevant materials. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with klax_search_learning_materials or klax_build_assignment_checklist. Without explicit exclusions, the agent might use it inappropriately, but the context is somewhat inferable.

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