list_check_ins

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It explains how results are scoped by course or event, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it clarify behavior when both parameters are provided or when neither is provided. The 'List' verb implies non-mutation but the edge cases remain unaddressed.

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 extremely concise: one opening sentence plus a short arg list. No filler or redundant information. The structure front-loads the purpose and then gives parameter details in an easily scannable format.

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 low complexity (2 optional params, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main use cases clearly. However, it leaves gaps around edge cases (both/neither param) and does not address pagination or result ordering, which would be useful for a list tool.

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 compensates by explaining the meaning and impact of each parameter: course_id returns check-ins across all sessions, event_id returns only that session's check-ins. It does not mention that both are optional or what happens if combined, but the core semantics are well covered.

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 'List attendance check-ins' uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes between two scopes: all check-ins across sessions (course_id) and a single session (event_id). This separates it from sibling tools like list_attendance_sessions and get_attendance_session.

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 clear context for when to use each parameter: course_id for course-wide check-ins, event_id for a specific session. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, only implying the choice via parameter semantics.

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