portal_portfolios

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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not clarify default behavior when studentId is omitted, whether multiple portfolios can be returned, response shape, ordering, or pagination. It discloses the operation type but nothing else about runtime behavior.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. Every word earns its place, and the verb-resource structure is immediately parseable by an agent.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), so a one-line description is nearly adequate. However, an agent cannot tell from the description what happens when studentId is omitted or how 'portfolio work items' differs from portal_assignments in practice. Minimal viable, but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the parameter 'studentId' is already documented in the schema ('Student ID (optional)'). The description adds no semantic detail beyond naming the resource being queried. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('student portfolio work items'), naming exactly what the tool returns. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like portal_assignments, portal_materials, or portal_evaluations, which target different resource types. The intent is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as portal_assignments, portal_evaluations, or portal_lesson_plans. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or the optional studentId parameter's intended use-case context.

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