get_completion

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully enumerates the possible state values and mentions the completion timestamp, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it cover permissions, pagination, or error behavior.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, but it is a grammatical fragment lacking a verb and omits the connection between 'per cmid' and the input parameters, making it under-specified despite its brevity.

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?

For a simple getter, the description adequately covers the return content—per-cmid state and timestamp—especially given the absence of an output schema. However, it does not explain what cmid refers to, whether the result is a list or single object, or how the two required parameters influence the result. It is adequate but leaves several contextual 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 should compensate by explaining course_id and user_id. It only paraphrases them conceptually and introduces 'cmid' as an output grouping without clarifying that cmid is not an input parameter. No additional meaning is added beyond the parameter names.

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 identifies a specific resource—activity completion status for a user in a course—and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_grades by listing per-cmid state values and timestamp. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'Gets' or 'Returns,' reading more as a noun phrase than a full tool statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_grades or get_course_logs. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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