list_students

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Returns the full roster in one call', indicating no pagination, and notes that the id from results is intended for use as student_id in other operations. It does not state read-only status explicitly, but 'list' and 'roster' imply it. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could mention ordering or any implicit constraints.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a behavioral note, and a clean Args list. No filler or redundancy. Front-loads the main purpose and then details parameters efficiently.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not enumerate return fields, yet it does highlight the key fields. It explains parameter sources and chaining behavior. However, it lacks explicit mention of ordering or any limits on the number of students, though 'full roster' implies all. Overall it's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, with minor gaps in MS.

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 Args section fully explains each parameter: school_id is sourced from list_schools, grade is an optional case-insensitive filter with an example, and name_contains is an optional substring filter. This adds clear semantics that the schema alone does not provide, effectively compensating for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 action ('List students') on a specific resource ('a school's admin roster') and lists the fields returned (id, name, grade, SIS id, guardians). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_class_students by emphasizing 'admin roster' and 'full roster'. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 some usage context: it returns the full roster in one call and instructs how to chain the resulting id into subsequent tools (get_student, edit_student, etc.). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of list_class_students or other list functions, nor does it state any exclusion criteria. The guidance is implicit through 'full roster' but lacks direct alternatives.

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