list_students

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior. It discloses that the tool is read-only by the verb 'List' and specifies the filtering behaviors: only attendance-enabled students and only those available to the configured account. It does not mention response details, but the output schema covers that.

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 front-loaded sentence that earns its place: the verb, resource, and key qualifiers are all present with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a 0-parameter list operation.

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 0-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly identifies what the tool returns and the account scope. The only gap is the absence of explicit guidance tying this tool to the absence-sibling flows, but the 'attendance-enabled' qualifier makes that link evident.

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 parameters, so schema coverage is complete and the description has no parameter meanings to add. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description contains no extraneous parameter information.

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 'List' with a specific resource ('attendance-enabled students') and a clear scope ('available to the configured account'). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are absence-action operations.

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 the tool is used to see which students can be selected for attendance-related workflows, but it never explicitly says when to use it versus the absence-tool siblings. No exclusions or alternative routes are mentioned.

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