list_exams

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden. It conveys a read-only listing operation (non-destructive) implicitly but lacks explicit details like return format or no side effects. It's adequate but not rich.

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, informative sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and scope. No unnecessary words, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema (though its content is unknown). The description is sufficient for an agent to call it, but it could be more explicit about the format of the return value, which the output schema may or may not cover.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description defines the scope of what is returned (exam types and year ranges), which is essential. This compensates fully for the absence of parameters.

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 states the tool lists available exam types and year ranges, which is a clear verb-resource pair. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_subjects, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative it differs from.

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 when to use it (to discover exam options) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since it's a discovery tool, context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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