Graduation Progress

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core read behavior by listing what the tool returns. However, it does not mention prerequisites like an authenticated OBS session, or whether include_raw/include_courses change the response shape, so transparency is adequate but not complete.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and packed the key scope into a colon-separated list. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name/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 documenting return values is less critical, but the optional parameters and OBS session dependency are undocumented. For the default no-arg call the description is usable, but for program-specific or raw-output invocations it is incomplete enough that an agent would have to guess.

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 the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The three parameters (program, include_raw, include_courses) are left entirely to their names/defaults, so the agent cannot know valid program values, what raw output means, or how include_courses alters the response. The description does nothing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and names a concrete resource ('Mezuniyetime Ne Kaldı' / graduation progress). It then enumerates the exact contents: plan requirements, credits earned vs. required, GPA/internship requirements, completed courses, and missing courses, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like obs_get_transcript or obs_get_academic_standing.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names alternatives or exclusion conditions. The intended use is inferable from the returned content, but the agent gets no help choosing between this and related OBS tools such as obs_get_course_history or obs_get_transcript.

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