get_subjects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type ('JSON array of lean subject records') but does not specify read-only nature, authentication needs, or potential errors. The operation is implied to be safe, but no explicit guarantees are given.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by argument and return format. Every part adds value with no verbosity. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the tool has a single optional parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers the core functionality. It mentions the return type, but could be improved by noting any constraints or typical use cases.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds crucial meaning: it explains the 'school' parameter is a subdomain and only needed when multiple schools exist. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's type and default.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all subjects taught at a school, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'subjects'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_classes and get_students by focusing on subjects. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a 'subject' or how it differs from other academic entities.

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?

The description provides minimal guidance: 'school' parameter is only needed with multiple schools. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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