generate_peer_review_feedback_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read operation. Description does not add further behavioral details (e.g., performance, error conditions). Acceptable but not enhanced.

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?

Docstring format with Args block is clear but somewhat verbose for the number of parameters. Could be more concise, but front-loads purpose effectively.

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?

Covers parameter semantics well but lacks usage context, behavioral notes, and differentiation from sibling tools. Output schema exists, so return values are handled elsewhere. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides clear parameter meanings (e.g., 'Course code or Canvas ID') and specifies allowed values for report_type and format_type. However, defaults (e.g., comprehensive, markdown, false) are not mentioned.

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?

Clear verb 'Create' and resource 'instructor-ready reports on peer review quality'. However, does not distinguish from sibling 'generate_peer_review_report'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_peer_review_report' or 'analyze_peer_review_quality'. Missing context on prerequisites or when not to use.

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