get_student

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 does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires special admin permissions, whether the student must exist (error behavior), or what happens if the ID is invalid. The phrase 'admin detail' hints at an admin context but does not disclose rate limits, data freshness, or side effects. For a single-record fetch, this is a notable gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose and return fields, and the Args line adds the critical ID provenance. Every sentence earns its place. It loses one point because the field list could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already documented. The description covers the input semantics well. However, with no annotations, the description should also disclose whether this is a safe read operation and any admin-context requirements. The absence of behavioral context makes it minimally viable but not complete.

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 does: it explains that student_id is the `id` from list_students and equates it to the roster id, which is meaningfully more than the schema's bare 'integer' type. This is exactly the kind of semantic clarification an agent needs to avoid passing the wrong identifier.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get admin detail for one student' and enumerates the fields returned (name, grade, SIS id, linked guardians, classes). This clearly distinguishes it from list_students (which lists students) and get_student_dashboard (which likely returns a dashboard view). It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming the sibling it is not, but the resource and field list make the purpose clear.

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 implies usage: call this when you need admin detail for a single student, and the Args note tells the agent to use the `id` from list_students. This is useful routing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer get_student_dashboard or list_students, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ID source.

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