get_directions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of directions, but does not describe behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description lacks critical behavioral context beyond the basic return statement.

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 structured with sections (description, use cases, returns), but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' could be integrated more tightly). Sentences like 'Se specialiseringar' are brief, but the overall text could be more front-loaded and streamlined. It's adequately sized but not optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose, use cases, and return information. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of the list), error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. For a simple retrieval tool, it's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description correctly focuses on other aspects without redundant information.

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: 'Hämta alla inriktningar för utbildningar' (Get all directions for education). It specifies the verb ('Hämta' - Get) and resource ('inriktningar' - directions/orientations), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_education_areas' or 'get_study_path_codes', which might retrieve similar educational metadata. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 includes an 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' (Use Cases) section listing scenarios like 'Se specialiseringar' (View specializations) and 'Filtrera utbildningar' (Filter education), which implies usage contexts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_education_areas' or 'search' tools), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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