get_student

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Get', and an output schema exists to define the return structure. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid student_id), authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks depth.

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 exceptionally concise: one purpose sentence and a parameter explanation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff or repetition. Every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (one parameter, clear purpose, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It covers the return fields and parameter semantics. Minor omissions like error behavior or prerequisites beyond sourcing the ID are acceptable for this scope, but could be enriched with a note on failure handling.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that student_id is the 'id' from list_students and equates it to the roster id, adding meaning beyond the bare integer type in the schema. This is strong parameter documentation for a single parameter.

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'), the resource ('admin detail for one student'), and enumerates the specific fields returned (name, grade, SIS id, linked guardians, classes). This distinguishes it from list_students (which retrieves many students) and get_student_dashboard (likely a student-facing view), even though those siblings are not explicitly named.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternative tools. The only usage hint is that student_id comes from list_students, which implies a prerequisite but does not clarify the tool's niche relative to siblings like get_student_dashboard or list_students.

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