Get lesson plan seed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that learner_profile is not stored — but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or whether the returned 'seed' is cached or generated on demand.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the return payload and the second handles the one behavioral caveat. The opening sentence is a dense comma list rather than a purpose statement, which slightly hurts front-loading of the core action.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned, which is the main completeness requirement here. It is still thin on item_id semantics and on what the enumerated artifacts look like (e.g., format of 'printable links'), but for a read-only retrieval tool it covers the essentials.

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 carries the burden, and it partially compensates by explaining that learner_profile is optional and not persisted. However, it never explains item_id (the required parameter), nor does it map any of the nested learner_profile fields (age, interests, learning_style), leaving the enum-bearing nested object undocumented.

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 enumerates the specific payload this tool returns (objectives, Hermes pairing line/prompt, discussion questions, activities, cautions, printable links) for an item, which is concrete and lets an agent infer it is a lesson-plan retrieval tool. It stops short of a clear verb-object opener and does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_item, which plausibly returns related item data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_item, get_course_outline, or the other retrieval siblings, and no prerequisite or context conditions are stated. The only conditional language ('learner_profile is optional') is parameter framing rather than usage guidance.

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