Get IELTS training context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what data is read (selection, sessions, saved target) but doesn't disclose details like return format, size of data returned, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, the additional value is the 'optional saved target' mention, which is modest. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, zero wasted words. Every clause adds meaning: what's read (selection, sessions, saved target), and when (before continuing or retraining). Perfectly front-loaded with the action verb and resource in the opening clause.

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 tool is simple (0 params, read-only, no nested objects) and has an output schema present, which covers return-value documentation. The description sufficiently establishes what context is gathered and when to call it. It is complete for a parameterless read tool with annotations and 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 tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and simply reads current state, which aligns with the parameterless signature. No parameter ambiguity exists to resolve.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Read the current selection, recent sessions, and optional saved target' precisely describes what this tool retrieves (training context) for the purpose of continuing or retraining. It distinguishes adequately from siblings like get_dashboard_data and list_practice_history since it's specifically about training context rather than dashboards or raw history.

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 phrase 'before continuing or retraining' provides clear context for when to use the tool (at the start of a training flow). However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools that might be confused with it. The usage guidance is implied through the purpose statement rather than explicitly stated.

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