get_student_progress

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 that the operation is read-only, mention any side effects, or describe what happens if the student_id is invalid or no data exists. It also does not disclose whether the response includes full history or an aggregated summary. The minimal wording leaves important behavioral traits implicit.

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 a single sentence of nine words, with no redundant phrasing. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain the nature of the return data. It mentions 'quiz history and progress' but does not specify the structure, fields, or level of detail. For a simple one-parameter tool this might be acceptable, but the vagueness of 'progress' and lack of any error or edge-case context make it incomplete. The description does not compensate for the absence of an output schema.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter student_id with a description ('Identifier for the student'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema already provides sufficient clarity. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a clear resource ('a student's recorded quiz history and progress'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like record_quiz_result (a write operation) and unrelated tools like calculate or convert_temperature. However, it does not specify the exact scope of 'progress' (e.g., summary vs. detailed list), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource, indicating a read-only action. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling record_quiz_result, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. It relies on the agent inferring that this is the appropriate tool for viewing progress data.

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