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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are enriched with attachments and cross-matched StudentVUE scores (a real behavioral trait), but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or failure modes when no StudentVUE match exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse rather than structured, but nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral detail; it covers purpose and return content but omits parameter semantics and the mechanics of the Schoology/StudentVUE match. Inadequate for an integration tool with an undocumented identifier parameter.

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% and the description never mentions sectionId. It does not explain what a section ID is, where to get one, or what happens when the parameter is omitted (it is not required), leaving a real ambiguity about whether the call is global or scoped.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (Schoology assignments) and it hints at enrichment (attachments, matched StudentVUE scores). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling studentvue_get_assignments, which an agent must choose between.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus the very similar sibling studentvue_get_assignments, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about authentication, pagination, result ordering, or what happens when start/end are omitted (0 required parameters). For a read tool with zero structured hints, this is a significant 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and constraints come first. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a result of missing information rather than disciplined trimming.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It leaves return shape, date-boundary semantics, default behavior for omitted parameters, and sibling differentiation entirely unspecified.

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 coverage is 0% and there are two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the ISO date format and that the two values form a range boundary, which adds real meaning over the bare format: date fields, but it never states whether the bounds are inclusive or how optionality/defaults behave.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Schoology calendar events'), and a scope ('between two ISO dates'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It stops short of a 5 because it does not differentiate itself from the sibling schoology_get_upcoming_events, which sounds like the same capability.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over schoology_get_upcoming_events, nor any prerequisite context (e.g. authentication or section scoping). The only usage signal is the implicit date-range constraint, which is left for the agent to infer.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read, but it discloses nothing about permissions, pagination, rate limits, or whether the folders are returned recursively. The word 'nested' hints at a hierarchical structure but is not developed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource listed up front and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though arguably too terse given the zero documentation elsewhere.

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?

For a one-parameter list tool the description conveys what is returned, which is the core need. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, it leaves the identifier meaning and any pagination/tree behavior unaddressed.

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% and the single required parameter (sectionId, a numeric course-section id) is never explained in the description. The phrase 'a course's' gestures at the resource but does not clarify that the parameter is a section identifier or its expected format.

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?

States a clear verb ('List') and enumerates the specific resources returned: nested folders, documents, pages, and assignments. This distinguishes it well from a bare 'get materials', but it never names a sibling like schoology_get_assignments, so an agent has to infer the boundary on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related siblings (schoology_get_assignments, schoology_read_document, schoology_list_sections). The agent must guess whether to call this or the narrower assignment/document tools.

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

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, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that it is read-only, that it requires an authenticated session, or what the profile payload contains. For a simple read tool this is a minor gap, but the description still adds no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is technically sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool, but it leaves the return shape and auth assumptions entirely unexplained. For a profile-read tool an extra clause about what fields are returned would complete the picture.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there are no parameter semantics to document, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed by scoping to the 'signed-in' user.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Schoology profile') scoped to the signed-in student, so the agent knows exactly what is fetched. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like schoology_get_recent_activity or schoology_list_sections, but 'profile' is a distinct resource, so confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., being authenticated), and no reference to any alternative sibling tool. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and one-line purpose.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'Get' implies a read, but the description never defines what 'recent' means (no time window), whether results are paginated or capped, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope qualifier and the returned content are stated immediately.

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?

For a no-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but leaves key ambiguities: the undefined 'recent' time window and the unspecified shape/volume of 'course updates'. No output schema exists to compensate.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty and fully self-describing.

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 gives a clear verb ('Get') and a specific scope ('account-wide Schoology announcements and course updates'). The word 'account-wide' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling schoology_get_section_updates, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus schoology_get_section_updates, schoology_get_upcoming_events, or schoology_get_calendar. Scope ('account-wide') is implied but no conditions or exclusions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing is said about what 'recent' means (a time window? a fixed count?), pagination, ordering, or any auth requirements.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing behavioral and usage detail rather than being a virtue on its own.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, no defined recency window, and an undocumented parameter, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently. The undefined term 'recent' is the most consequential gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema supplies only the type and a numeric pattern for sectionId. The phrase 'one Schoology section' does implicitly tie the call to a single section identifier, which is marginal added meaning, but the required-ID semantics and format are not explained in the description.

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 recent posts' scoped to 'one Schoology section.' That is clear enough to distinguish it from list/read siblings, but it never names or contrasts a sibling such as schoology_get_recent_activity or schoology_get_materials, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives. A caller cannot tell from this text whether it should use this tool or schoology_get_recent_activity for section-level posts.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no auth requirements, no note on whether events are user-scoped, section-scoped, or paginated. 'Get' weakly implies a read, but nothing beyond that.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and constraint front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the reason other dimensions are thin.

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?

For a low-complexity, one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves open what an 'event' contains and what happens with the optional days parameter. Not misleading, but not complete enough to be confident.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. 'Within 1 to 180 days' clarifies that the days parameter is a forward-looking horizon, but this value is largely mirrored by the schema's minimum/maximum, and the default behavior when days is omitted (it is optional) is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get upcoming Schoology events') plus a temporal scope, so an agent can tell it apart from generic activity tools like get_recent_activity. However it does not differentiate itself from the sibling schoology_get_calendar, whose scope is ambiguous relative to 'upcoming events'.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when this beats schoology_get_calendar, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only guidance is the implicit 1-180 day window, which is restated from the schema.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and signals a data merge with StudentVUE grades, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format details.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter listing tool, though it is terse enough that important usage context is absent.

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 description gives the core purpose and a hint about returned data ('sections with official StudentVUE course grades'), which is useful because no output schema exists. However, it omits usage context, authentication expectations, and any detail about the shape or volume of returned sections and grades.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the rule baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable because there is no input schema to clarify.

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 ('List') and resource ('enrolled Schoology sections') and adds that results include official StudentVUE course grades. It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like studentvue_get_grades or schoology_get_section_updates.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites. The only implied guidance is the bare 'List' operation itself.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but says nothing about permission requirements, supported document formats, behavior on unsupported files, or whether it follows redirects/external links. For a content-extraction tool this is a meaningful 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted in other dimensions.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It should at minimum clarify what 'text' is returned, what happens for unsupported formats, and how it relates to the sibling retrieval tools.

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% and the description adds nothing about the two parameters. It does not explain that sectionId scopes the document to a course section or that documentId identifies a specific attachment, nor does it clarify the numeric-string pattern constraint.

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 names a specific verb ('Read text from') and resource ('Schoology document or assignment attachment'), which is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from siblings like schoology_get_materials or schoology_get_assignments, which also surface document-like content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling retrieval tools (get_materials, get_assignments, get_section_updates). The agent must infer that this is for extracting text content specifically, with no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds only that results are 'official' grades; it says nothing about authentication requirements (StudentVUE login), rate limits, or what a result contains. For a zero-annotation read tool this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the optional filtering clause is attached directly to the main verb.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, yet the description is one sentence. It omits return shape (grades, points, due dates), auth prerequisites, and query semantics — significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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. 'Filtered by class or title' loosely maps to classId and query, giving an agent a usable mental model, but it doesn't clarify that query is a title/text search nor explain the classId numeric format.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus resource (assignment grades) and source system (FCPS StudentVUE), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling schoology_get_assignments and studentvue_get_grades. The contrast is implied via 'official FCPS StudentVUE' rather than stated explicitly, so it stops short of a 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?

No guidance on when to choose this over schoology_get_assignments (the near-identical sibling) or over studentvue_get_grades. The 'optionally filtered' phrasing describes behavior, not context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read ('Get') and notes the source is 'official', but says nothing about authentication requirements, freshness or caching of marks, rate limits, or error behavior when the portal is unreachable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and data source come first and every word earns its place.

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?

It conveys the shape of the return (course marks and percentages) which partially compensates for the absent output schema, but with no annotations and no parameters, more behavioral detail about reliability or scope would be needed to be fully 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current course marks and percentages') and identifies the data source (FCPS StudentVUE). It is distinguishable from the schoology_* siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with studentvue_get_assignments, which is the closest neighbor.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. The agent must infer that this is the tool for marks rather than assignments purely from the resource noun.

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