academy_teach

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and a closed-world scope, and the description's "Read" is consistent with that safety profile. The description adds only that the content is derived from lesson headings and exercises; it does not disclose pagination, caching, authorization requirements, or whether a missing lesson produces an error.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is structurally efficient. It is arguably too terse for a four-parameter tool, but the text itself contains no wasted statements.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description leaves major agent needs unaddressed: when to choose this tool over academy_lesson, what slug and level mean, and what kind of teaching steps are returned. For a tool in a dense sibling namespace with partial schema coverage, this is materially incomplete.

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 only 50%, and the two required parameters, slug and level, have no descriptions in the schema. The description does not mention either parameter, so it does not compensate for the missing semantics around what slug identifies or how level constrains the returned teaching steps.

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 names a verb ("Read") and an approximate resource ("teaching steps drawn from the actual lesson headings and exercise"), so an agent can infer the general intent. However, it does not clarify whether this tool fetches existing lesson content, generates a teaching sequence, or returns something else, nor does it distinguish itself from close siblings such as academy_lesson or academy_tutor_context.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With many sibling tools covering lessons, levels, and tutoring, an agent has no explicit signal about when academy_teach is the right choice.

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