ed_get_lesson

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about XML-to-text conversion, but it also unconditionally states 'includes all slides' despite the schema allowing include_slide_content=false, which is a behavioral nuance not disclosed. This is not a contradiction with annotations, but it is an incomplete disclosure.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a valuable detail about XML conversion. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only annotations and a relatively simple schema, the description plus schema covers the essential functionality well. However, the lack of an output schema and the unmentioned include_slide_content toggle leave some ambiguity about the exact return structure. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most 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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With schema coverage at 67%, the include_slide_content parameter is left entirely undocumented in both the schema and description. The response_format description is also minimal ('Output format'), and the description does not clarify the effect of these parameters on the returned content.

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 returns the complete content of a single Ed lesson, including all slides with XML automatically converted to text. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ed_list_lessons (which lists lessons) and ed_get_thread (which gets a thread). The verb 'get' is implied and the resource 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?

The description implies use when a user needs full lesson content, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like ed_list_lessons. It also doesn't mention that lesson IDs can be obtained from ed_list_lessons (though the schema does), nor does it exclude any contexts. The usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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