List the subjects a learner can study, each with its unit count, and identify 'read' as the entry point for beginning coached study.
[WALK · internal] Coach — the subjects a learner can study (read / mcguffey / aesop / founding / pilgrims / es / …), each with its unit count. 'read' is the door in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It doesn't state that this is a read-only listing, whether it's cached, or what the unit-count structure looks like. '[WALK · internal]' and 'the door in' imply an entry/routing concept but leave it opaque.
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?
One compact sentence, but the bracketed tag and 'the door in' metaphor consume space without adding operational meaning. Front-loading is fine; clarity-per-word is mediocre.
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 zero-param read tool this covers the essentials (what it returns: subjects + unit counts). But with no output schema and no annotations, a fuller note on return shape or how it fits into the coach_* family would improve it.
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?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter meaning, and correctly avoids inventing any.
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?
States a specific resource: the subjects a learner can study, with enumerated examples and a note that each has a unit count. The '[WALK · internal]' prefix is cryptic metadata that doesn't clarify purpose. Sibling differentiation from coach_overview/coach_unit/coach_mastery is only implicit.
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 indication of when to use this vs. siblings like coach_overview, coach_unit, or coach_next. The phrase "'read' is the door in" hints at an entry point but doesn't say under what conditions an agent should call this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.