plms_get_grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral notes beyond that: grades are filtered to what is "visible" to the user, and the running total must not be mistaken for the final course grade. It says nothing about whether feedback may lag or how current the data is.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the interpretation caveat in second position. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-values documentation is not required, and the annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is any linkage between the tool and its required course_id argument and how it relates to sibling tools that surface courses. Adequate but with clear gaps for a single-required-parameter 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% and the single parameter (course_id, integer) is never mentioned in the description. Nothing clarifies that grades are scoped to one course, or how course_id is obtained (e.g., from plms_list_courses). With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ("Read this user's visible grades and feedback") that is clearly distinct from siblings like plms_get_attendance or plms_get_assignment. It does not explicitly name or rule out any alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5. Still, an agent can identify the resource without opening the schema.

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 alternatives such as plms_course_outline or plms_get_assignment, nor any prerequisites. The only guidance offered concerns interpreting the result, not selecting the tool. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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