list_exams

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does useful work by disclosing what each returned row contains (examId, kexamId, answered count, canDelete). However, it says nothing about permission requirements, whether unpublished exams are included, ordering, or pagination, which matters for a teacher-facing listing tool.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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the returned fields. No filler, though it is terse enough that some necessary context is omitted rather than wasted space.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration is a genuine contribution, but the description still leaves open whether the list is exhaustive, what canDelete is derived from, and what an empty result means. For a single-parameter read tool this is adequate but not complete.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('課程 ID'), so the schema already explains it. The description's phrase '課程測驗列表' merely restates that the list is scoped to a course and adds no format or edge-case guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('取得課程測驗列表') and enumerates the returned fields (examId, kexamId, answered count, canDelete), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_exam_record_detail or delete_exam. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied by the name and the 'course' qualifier; there is no statement of when to call this versus get_exam_record_detail (per-attempt detail) or list_homeworks. The agent must infer the routing decision from the tool name alone.

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