academy_lesson

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format (critical without an output schema). It mentions 'full content' but doesn't detail what that entails (e.g., structured data, HTML), leaving key behaviors opaque.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full content of a specific lesson'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, response structure, and parameter semantics, leaving the agent with significant gaps. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be complete.

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 low (33%), with only 'slug' having a description. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain 'level' (e.g., course level), 'slug' usage, or 'locale' impact (e.g., language of content). Since it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap, it meets the baseline for minimal value.

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 action ('Get full content') and resource ('a specific lesson'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'academy_lessons' (likely lists lessons) and 'academy_quiz' (quiz-related), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't specify what 'full content' includes (e.g., text, media, exercises), keeping it from a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid lesson ID), contrast with siblings like 'academy_lessons' (for listing) or 'academy_next_lesson' (for navigation), or specify use cases (e.g., for learning content vs. metadata). The description alone offers no usage context.

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