list_absence_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action (listing options) without disclosing side effects, permissions, or edge cases (e.g., behavior when no student is provided or when multiple students exist). Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the literal action.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more structured by separating the purpose from the parameter clarification.

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?

The tool has only one optional parameter and no annotations, but the description leaves ambiguity about the 'student selector' context and the meaning of 'only available student.' An output schema exists, so return details are not required, but the description should clarify the tool's exact role and edge cases.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the 'student' parameter. It implies the parameter is optional ('or the only available student') and relates to selecting options, but it doesn't explain the parameter's format, allowed values, or how it determines the result. Adds some meaning but not comprehensive.

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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('absence types and reasons'), which distinguishes it from list_absences (which likely lists actual absences). However, the qualifier 'for a student selector or the only available student' is ambiguous and doesn't precisely convey the tool's role in a UI flow.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_absences or draft_absence. The phrase 'for a student selector' hints at a UI context, but it doesn't state when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions.

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