get_homework

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose—nothing about date range semantics, pagination (limit parameter), or what happens if no homework exists. Given the presence of annotations, the description should at least mention relevant constraints, but it does not.

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 extremely short—a single noun phrase. While it is concise, it is under-specified and does not front-load key information such as the operation type (get) or the necessary scope (date range, student). It reads more like a title than a functional description.

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 simple read-only tool with detailed schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and subject, and the schema covers parameter meaning. However, it does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or anything about how results are ordered or filtered, which an agent might need to know. The lack of an output schema makes this gap more noticeable.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptive comments for all parameters (student_id, date_from, date_to, limit). The description itself adds no additional parameter documentation, so it does not improve beyond the schema's existing clarity. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Zadania domowe i przypisane prace dziecka' clearly identifies the resource (homework and assigned tasks for a child) and implies retrieval, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list'. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_grades or get_timetable based on the domain, so the purpose is reasonably clear.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why one would choose get_homework over other tools. The context signals show sibling tools, but the description gives no comparative information.

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