Build Degree Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description clarifies it is a read (useful against the misleading 'build' name) and notes the default-selection behavior, but adds little further context about scope, permissions, or what happens when plan_id is supplied versus omitted.

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 clean sentence with the key default behavior front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is arguably under-specification for a five-parameter tool rather than true conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and a name that contradicts the described read-only behavior, the definition leaves the agent without enough to call this correctly — especially the required faculty_id/program_code pairing and the role of plan_id vs latest.

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 0% across five parameters, yet the description only touches the 'latest' flag (and duplicates its schema default). faculty_id, program_code, plan_id, and plan_type (a Turkish-language enum-like value "lisans") are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a verb ("Read") and a resource ("official semester-by-semester OBS curriculum"), which is far clearer than the tool name 'build_degree_plan' implies — 'build' suggests construction, not retrieval. However, it does not differentiate this tool from close siblings such as list_degree_programs or plan_remaining_courses, leaving the agent to guess which one returns the curriculum.

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 only guidance is that the latest plan is selected by default, which is really a parameter default rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to use this versus list_degree_programs/plan_remaining_courses, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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