get_exam_record_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 讀取 implies a read-only operation and the text usefully discloses that the response separates auto-graded from human-graded content, but it says nothing about permissions, access scope, or error conditions for a non-existent recordId.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the substantive behavior (auto vs manual grading distinction) is included without redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the payload contains (graded vs manually graded answers), which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps around permissions and error behavior keep it from a 5.

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% – recordId is already documented as 作答紀錄 ID (recordID). The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (讀取) and resource (學生個別測驗作答明細), and even characterizes the payload by distinguishing auto-graded multiple-choice from manually graded essay answers. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like audit_essay_question.

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?

Usage is implied by '讀取學生個別測驗作答明細' – fetch a single student's exam answer sheet. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., teacher role), and no routing to alternatives such as audit_essay_question for grading.

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