attendance_schedule_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides meaningful behavior beyond the schema by explaining the positive/negative ID convention. However, it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or behavior when pk is omitted, which leaves some ambiguity for a no-output-schema tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical ID-sign behavior follows immediately. Every word contributes useful information.

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?

For a simple optional-parameter list tool, the description covers the main action and the non-obvious ID convention. But with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from stating what the returned objects contain or what happens with no pk. The absence of any sibling guidance also leaves the tool somewhat underspecified 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 schema already documents pk as 'Optional group/course ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds genuine value by specifying that a positive pk selects a schedule group and a negative pk selects a course, which is not derivable from the schema. This makes the parameter semantics clearer and more actionable.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('schedule groups and courses'). It also communicates a useful disambiguation rule (positive ID = schedule group, negative = course), which helps distinguish this tool from related attendance reference tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like attendance_classes or attendance_students.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternative attendance or course-related tools. It only states what the tool lists and how the ID sign maps to entity type. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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