get_student_analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get a summary' and lists included data points, but does not describe the return format, pagination, potential size, or any side effects. It also doesn't clarify whether any special permissions are needed. The description is minimal and leaves much about runtime behavior undisclosed.

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 that efficiently conveys the essence of the tool. It includes the key resource and scope without unnecessary words. This is an example of concise and well-structured writing.

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 parameter), and an output schema is present, so return values are presumably defined there. However, the description lacks any usage context or parameter explanation. Given the absence of annotations and the 0% schema description coverage, the description is adequate for basic calling but incomplete for helping an agent decide when to use it and what to expect beyond the summary list.

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 has zero description coverage for the only parameter (course_identifier). The description does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning beyond the phrase 'for a course', which merely repeats the parameter's name. It does not specify allowed formats, examples, or how the identifier is used. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 specific resource ('per-student engagement summary'), and the scope ('for a course'). It lists the included dimensions (page views, participations, on-time/late/missing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_assignment_analytics. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose statement.

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. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. While the purpose is clear, the agent is left to infer when it should select this tool over the many other read-oriented siblings.

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