get_curriculum_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool returns ('Hela läroplanen med alla kapitel och avsnitt') and provides an example parameter value, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Hämta').

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, use cases, returns, example). The Swedish text is efficient, though the example could be more integrated. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be more front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides good purpose and usage context but insufficient parameter documentation. It explains what the tool returns but not the format or structure of that return data.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only provides an example for the 'code' parameter ('code="LGR11" för grundskolans läroplan') but doesn't explain the 'version' parameter at all. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Hämta komplett läroplan' - retrieve complete curriculum) and resource ('läroplan' - curriculum). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_curriculums' by specifying it retrieves the complete curriculum with all sections rather than searching/filtering.

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 explicit usage guidelines in the 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' section, listing four specific use cases (reading values/mission, reviewing goals, understanding frameworks, planning activities). It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by specifying this retrieves complete curriculum details rather than searching or filtering.

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