academy_next_lesson

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a recommendation based on progress, implying it reads user data, but does not address permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if no incomplete lessons exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and behavior. There is no wasted language, and every sentence contributes essential information, making it efficient 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 (recommending based on progress), no annotations, no output schema, and one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on parameters, return values, and behavioral nuances. It meets the basic requirement but has clear gaps in 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 input schema has one parameter ('locale') with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The tool description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no semantic information beyond what the schema provides. With one parameter and no output schema, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Recommend the next lesson based on your progress.' It specifies the verb ('recommend') and resource ('next lesson'), and the additional detail about returning 'the first incomplete lesson in the lowest level you have access to' adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'academy_lesson' or 'academy_lessons', which might also retrieve lesson information.

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 does not mention sibling tools such as 'academy_lesson' (which might fetch a specific lesson) or 'academy_progress_complete' (which could update progress), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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