jlpt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses some important traits: random unseen question selection, level fallback to any level, grading an answer, and recording to a progress store. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as error handling, validation rules, session persistence, and any auth or rate limit considerations.

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 front-loaded with a one-line summary followed by a clean, line-per-operation breakdown. Every sentence is necessary and there is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a multi-operation tool with six parameters and no annotations or schema descriptions, the definition covers the operation routing but is incomplete on parameter meaning and deeper behavioral context. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must explain all six parameters. It covers operation, level (N5..N1), answer (a letter), and question_id, but leaves session_id and response_time_ms completely undefined. The two missing parameters are significant for correct invocation, so compensation is only partial.

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 specifies the resource (JLPT quiz) and enumerates its three operations (next, answer, progress) with a brief gloss for each. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like vocab or kanji, which could also relate to Japanese learning.

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 each operation should be used (next for a new question, answer for grading, progress for a score summary), but it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling tools (vocab, knowledge, kanji) or any exclusions. Usage is inferable only from the operation breakdown.

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