List exams

Does 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 covered. The description adds value by enumerating returned fields, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering for what is a list endpoint over an open-world source.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, followed by purpose and filters. No filler whatsoever.

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 simple two-optional-filter list tool with no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned fields and the entry-point role. The only real gap is the absence of pagination or result-size expectations, which matters for an open-world list endpoint.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented as optional id filters. The description merely restates 'Optionally filter by class_id or subject_id' without adding format, semantics, or interaction details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List exam papers (assessments)') and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, status, class, subject). It implicitly distinguishes itself from ictexam_get_exam by framing itself as the entry point for finding an exam's id, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

'Start here to find an exam's id' gives clear contextual guidance on when to reach for this tool, and the optional-filter sentence explains the narrowing behavior. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming the alternative (get_exam) that the returned id feeds into.

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