Get Activity Instructions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that, but it goes well beyond them by disclosing a capability limit (the server lacks Packet Tracer's ACTIVITY_WIZARD privilege, so no answers or scores are available) and the shape of the payload (plain-text instruction pages). That is exactly the kind of constraint an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 core behaviour is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the limitation and then three illustrative queries. Every block is useful, though the example list adds length that a shorter one-line sample could have covered.

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-argument read tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the trigger condition, what the returned text contains, what it deliberately cannot do, and where the agent should redirect grading questions. Nothing necessary for a correct call is missing.

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 the baseline is 4; the description implicitly conveys that the call operates on whatever activity file is currently open rather than requiring an identifier. There is no additional parameter nuance to document.

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 and resource (return instruction pages of the open .pka activity as plain text) and enumerates the content returned: objectives, addressing table, and tasks. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as get_pt_information or send_simple_pdu, so an agent can route to it without inspecting other schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition (the open file must be a Packet Tracer activity, .pka) and an explicit negative case: grading, answers and completion percentage are out of scope, with the alternative named ('Use Check Results in Packet Tracer'). It also adds a behavioural preference for student-facing use (explain and hint rather than completing graded tasks), which is genuine usage guidance.

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