ictexam_item_analysisPer-question item analysis for one exam: difficulty, p-value, average mark and how many responses were full vs zero credit.
Per-question item analysis for one exam: difficulty, p-value, average mark and how many responses were full vs zero credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessment_id | Yes | The exam paper (assessment) id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / assessment_id / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / assessment_id / minimumAdded value: +-9007199254740991v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the result is per-question and lists specific computed metrics, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like computation cost, caching, or data freshness.
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 efficient sentence with the core purpose and metric list front-loaded. It contains no filler, though the metric enumeration is slightly dense.
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?
For a read-only one-parameter analytics tool with no output schema, the description adequately names the key return values. It could be more complete by clarifying what 'difficulty' and 'p-value' mean or by noting any limitations, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 100%, so the single assessment_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only implies the parameter via 'for one exam' and adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema provides.
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 a specific analysis resource and scope ('per-question item analysis for one exam') and names the exact metrics produced. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ictexam_gradebook, but the purpose is understandable on its own.
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 phrase 'for one exam' implies usage context but does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ictexam_gradebook. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.