practice_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool scores and returns a report, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior for invalid IDs, or any external dependencies. It adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence. It immediately states the action, inputs, and output without any filler, repeating only what is necessary for clarity. It 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the core operation but omits details about the report structure, validation behavior, and how this fits into the broader practice workflow. It is minimally complete but not deeply informative.

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 has one parameter 'answers' with id and attempt strings, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only says 'list of id/attempt', which barely restates the schema. It does not explain the meaning of 'id' (e.g., card identifier) or the expected format/content of 'attempt', which is insufficient given the lack of schema assistance.

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 action ('Score') and clearly identifies the input resource ('a whole practice round (list of id/attempt)') and output ('session report with per-card feedback'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like practice_answer (single card) and practice_plan (planning), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies usage when scoring a full practice round, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as practice_answer or practice_plan. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or exclusion conditions, leaving usage guidance only implied.

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