get_subject_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (retrieves detailed subject information), includes use cases that imply read-only behavior, and specifies the return format ('Komplett ämnesinformation med alla detaljer'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for use cases, return values, and an example. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of being complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return values. However, it could improve by explicitly stating it's a read-only tool or mentioning any prerequisites, which would help compensate for the lack of structured 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 adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that the 'code' parameter is for subject codes (e.g., 'GRGRMAT01' for mathematics) and provides an example, and it implies the 'version' parameter is optional by stating 'lämna tomt för senaste versionen' (leave empty for the latest version) in the schema. However, it doesn't fully detail all parameter behaviors or constraints.

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 a specific verb ('Hämta detaljerad information') and resource ('ett specifikt ämne'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_subject_versions (which focuses on version history) or search_subjects (which searches rather than retrieves details). The Swedish text translates to 'Retrieve detailed information about a specific subject,' providing unambiguous intent.

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 that explicitly lists scenarios for using this tool: viewing central content, reviewing knowledge requirements, understanding subject structure and progression, and planning teaching. This provides clear guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_course_details or search_subjects, which serve different purposes.

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