get_grades

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses the return payload (raw/max grade, item name, module type, feedback) and the behavior when user_id is omitted (returns for all enrolled users). It does not mention errors, permissions, or side effects, but the 'Get' verb and return-focused wording imply a non-mutating operation.

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 that front-loads the action and scope, then lists the return fields. Every word adds value; no filler or repetition.

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 has no output schema, but the description compensates by specifying the returned fields. The optional user_id behavior is clearly explained. It omits potential error conditions or prerequisite permissions, but for a simple read operation with only two parameters, the description provides adequate context.

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 schema already describes the user_id parameter's optional behavior (50% coverage). The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond repeating that user_id is optional and indicating course context. The course_id parameter remains undocumented in the schema and description, though its meaning is easily inferred from the tool's purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('gradebook entries'), clearly stating the optional scope (a single user or all enrolled users if user_id is omitted). It also lists the returned data (raw/max grade, item name, module type, feedback), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_quiz_attempts or get_completion.

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 gives clear context (when to retrieve grades, optionally for all users), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or mention situations where this tool should not be used. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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