get_theses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as pagination details or response format, beyond what the schema provides.

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 four words, very concise. However, it is slightly too minimal; a bit more context (e.g., 'paginated results') could improve it without being verbose.

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 the tool's simplicity (paginated list), schema coverage, and annotations, the description is adequate but does not mention pagination explicitly or describe the output shape. Without an output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 both cursor and per_page are described in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 states 'Get all thesis records', specifying the verb 'get' and resource 'thesis records'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover other resources, but the phrase 'all' is slightly misleading since pagination is used.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling 'get_*' tools, the description should provide context on choosing this tool, but it does not.

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