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 read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about the data model (status values draft/published, fields returned) and positions the tool as a discovery mechanism. It does not discuss pagination, ordering, or limits, but these are less critical given the simple read-only nature and proactive annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and returned data, followed by usage guidance and filter options. Every sentence contributes value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 list tool with two optional filters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, the fields returned, the entry-point role, and the available filters. The annotations cover safety, and no essential call-time information is missing.

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%: both class_id and subject_id have clear descriptions ('Optional class id filter', 'Optional subject id filter'). The description merely restates 'Optionally filter by class_id or subject_id' without adding new semantics like filter behavior or format requirements. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('exam papers (assessments) on ICTExam'), and specifies the returned fields (id, title, status, class, subject). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by positioning this as the entry point to find an exam's id, which get_exam likely retrieves by id. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 'Start here to find an exam's id' gives clear context for when to use this tool as the first step in a workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for a simple list-with-filter tool. Lacking explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.

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