get_study_path_codes

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 'RETURNERAR: Lista över studievägar med koder' (returns: list of study paths with codes), which describes output format. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, use cases, returns). It's appropriately sized at 4 sentences/points. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. There's minimal waste, though the Swedish language might require translation for some agents.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it states the purpose, use cases, and return format, it doesn't adequately cover parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, or detailed output structure. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured documentation, more comprehensive description is needed.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'Filtrera efter typ' (filter by type) which loosely relates to the 'studyPathType' parameter, but doesn't explain any of the three parameters (schooltype, timespan, studyPathType) or their semantics. With 3 undocumented parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond what's in the bare schema.

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 studievägskodar (programkoder)' translates to 'Get study path codes (program codes)'. It specifies the resource (study path codes/program codes) and the action (get/retrieve). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_program_details' or 'search_programs', which prevents a score of 5.

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 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' (use cases) section provides clear context: listing all high school programs, finding program codes, and filtering by type. This gives practical guidance on when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, which would be needed for a score of 5.

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