Оценки по курсу

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description correctly spends its budget on what annotations cannot express: the per-user report scope, the ordered items structure, the meaning of grade values (null for categories, "-" for missing grades), and the failure mode when journal markup is unrecognized. It stops short of stating whose user the report is for or what auth it needs.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the return-structure enumeration and then the error condition. Each clause earns its place because no output schema exists, though the field-by-field listing is dense and could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly (items fields, ordering, grade semantics) plus an error condition. The remaining gap is identity/scope: nothing says whether 'the student' is the authenticated user or how that is determined, which matters for an openWorld read.

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?

There is a single parameter, courseId, fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) as the edu.hse.ru course id. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work – baseline 3.

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 in the first clause: student grades for a SmartLMS course, framed as a per-user report. That is far more informative than the vague title 'Оценки по курсу'. It never contrasts itself with near siblings such as lms_list_assignments, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternative tools (lms_list_assignments, lms_get_course_materials). Usage is only implied by the resource name; the only routing signal given is the error case when the journal markup is unrecognized.

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