get_classrooms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but gives no details such as authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or consequences. It also does not mention whether the 'subdomain' parameter is required or optional, or what happens if omitted. For a tool with zero annotation support, this is insufficient.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it achieves brevity at the expense of essential information. It is front-loaded with the purpose but omits any details about usage or parameters. While it is not bloated, its extreme brevity makes it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 one parameter with no schema documentation, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the role of the parameter, the expected return, or any operational context. An agent attempting to use this tool correctly would have to guess or rely on external knowledge. The description provides almost no value beyond stating the basic action.

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%, meaning the description must explain the 'subdomain' parameter, but it does not. The description makes no mention of any parameters, leaving the agent with no idea what 'subdomain' means, its purpose, or its format. This is a critical gap for a tool with one parameter.

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 'Get all classrooms in the school' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (classrooms in the school), and the word 'all' indicates a comprehensive retrieval. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_classes or get_students by focusing on classrooms specifically. However, it does not specify any nuance beyond that, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like get_classes, get_students, or get_subjects might be relevant for similar retrieval needs, but the description doesn't mention any selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to guess whether this should be called first or in what context.

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