get_tactic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the session is 'solution-hidden' and that puzzle selection is rating-matched, but it does not say whether this starts/creates stateful session data, what prerequisites or permissions apply, or what happens if no due puzzle exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, resource, and scope qualifiers in order of importance. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a stateful session-starting tool with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description omits prerequisites and the meaning of its parameters, leaving real gaps 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It only gestures at learner context ('the learner's rating') and says nothing about the required learner_id or the optional theme filter, leaving the theme parameter entirely unexplained.

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 gives a concrete verb (select) and resource (a due puzzle) plus scope qualifiers (near the learner's rating, solution-hidden session). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling it differs from (e.g., get_due_repertoire_drill), and the name 'get_tactic' vs 'puzzle' wording is slightly loose.

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?

It implies the usage context (training flow, learner is due for a puzzle) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to alternatives like get_due_repertoire_drill or the follow-up submit_tactic_move. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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