get_learner_progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions 'persisted' and 'paginated' but does not disclose permissions, whether preferences are cached, pagination defaults, or rate limits. An agent lacks key operational context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. Minimal waste, though it tries to combine two concepts without clarity.

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?

With no annotations, an output schema present (so returns need not be described fully), and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It should clarify the two data sources, pagination behavior, and parameter usage to be callable correctly.

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 must compensate. It only implies a pagination mechanism via 'paginated' but does not explain the 'offset' parameter's role, default, or the meaning/format of 'learner_id'. Significant gap.

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 two distinct actions (reading learner preferences and a paginated training-progress view) but is vague about the resource relationship. No sibling differentiation despite many related learner/training tools in the list (e.g., get_concept_progress, update_learner_profile, record_training_attempt).

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 such as get_concept_progress or update_learner_profile. No prerequisites, authentication context, or exclusions mentioned.

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