academy_lessons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only and non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'completed status' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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 action ('List all lessons within a level') and adds key detail ('with completed status'). There is no wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values (e.g., list format, status indicators), error cases, or how it integrates with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to be complete, but it falls short, leaving the agent with incomplete operational knowledge.

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 50%, with 'level' documented but 'locale' lacking a description in the schema. The description mentions 'within a level', aligning with the 'level' parameter, but adds no details on 'locale' (e.g., language selection impact). It partially compensates for the coverage gap by implying level usage, but doesn't fully explain parameter interactions or semantics, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('lessons within a level'), specifying the scope as 'all lessons' with 'completed status'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'academy_lesson' (singular) and 'academy_levels' (levels rather than lessons), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'academy_progress_complete' or 'academy_next_lesson', which might overlap in purpose, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'academy_lesson' for single lessons or 'academy_next_lesson' for progression, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context, scoring low due to the absence of comparative or contextual advice.

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