Get Tutor Opening Messages

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety, and the description adds that results are keyed by self-assessment level. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details such as whether all entries are returned by default, ordering, or error behavior. This is acceptable for a simple read-only tool but not exceptional.

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 sentences communicate the resource, the keying mechanism, and the purpose without wasted words. The essential behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the returned resource and its organization. Slightly more detail about default behavior without a filter would make it fully complete, but the current description is adequate for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds meaning by connecting 'self-assessment key' to 'self-assessment level' and 'proficiency levels,' clarifying what the filter represents beyond the schema's generic 'Filter by self-assessment key.'

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning tutor opening messages and further specifies that they are keyed by self-assessment level. This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools such as cl_get_content or cl_get_adaptation_summary.

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 purpose statement implies usage context—call this to see tutor greetings at different proficiency levels—but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternative sibling tools. The optional filter is mentioned in the schema, not in the description.

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