Get Exam Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with these rather than contradicting them. The description adds useful context by listing the returned data and noting that academic gates are unchanged, but it does not explain errors, authorization, or what 'alternative-assessment state' means.

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 front-loaded with purpose and the full list of return categories, followed by one targeted parameter note. Every sentence contributes meaning, though the return-category list is dense.

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 description covers the main return surface of the tool and calls out an important cohortId fallback, which is valuable given there is no output schema. However, it leaves the required IDs' roles and the overall response shape to be inferred from the schema property names and tool title.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters, but it only addresses cohortId explicitly. examId, moduleVersionId, organizationTermId, and attemptNumber receive no explanatory value beyond their property names and schema constraints.

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 verb and resource ('Drill into one assessment attempt') and enumerates the detailed fields returned, which makes the tool's purpose clear even without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as get_module_attempts or search_fuxam, so some differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided; the description never states when this tool should be chosen over sibling tools or what conditions make it the appropriate choice. The only usage note ('Omit cohortId...') concerns parameter behavior, not tool selection.

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