get_students

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says "Get," which is already implied by the name, and does not mention authentication, permissions, what "class" means in this system, or whether results are paginated/limited. This is a sparse description for a tool operating in an authenticated context, leaving an agent to guess at side effects or constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action efficiently. However, it is so terse that it omits crucial details, which is a structural balance issue, so it does not earn a 5.

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 undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should compensate by clarifying the meaning of subdomain and the scope of "class." It does neither. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without inferring that subdomain might be the school's domain. This is a major gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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 contains a single parameter, subdomain, with default null and no documentation. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention subdomain at all. An agent has no idea what to pass or whether it matters, making this description unhelpful for parameter usage.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Get all students in the logged-in user's class." This gives a scoped, actionable purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_all_students or get_my_students, leaving some ambiguity about which is appropriate in overlapping contexts.

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 implies the use case (when you need students in the logged-in user's class) and gives a clear context. But it provides no guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer (e.g., get_all_students or get_my_students). There are no exclusions or conditions stated.

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