sis_grades

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it partially meets it by disclosing what the call returns (semester / course / grade / credits), which establishes it as a read-only retrieval. However, it says nothing about scope (all historical terms vs. current term), ordering, or authentication requirements, which matter for a grade record.

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 verb and resource lead, the parenthetical field list follows. Nothing is repeated from structured data and there is no wasted clause.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does list four fields, which is adequate for a simple read tool. It remains silent on scope and ordering, so an agent cannot tell whether the result covers every historical term or only the current one.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's field list pertains to the return value rather than inputs and does not create ambiguity.

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+resource in '取全部学期成绩' (fetch all semester grades) and names the returned fields (semester / course / grade / credits), so it is clearly distinct from schedule, exam, or status siblings. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource noun 'grades' is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative tool such as sis_statuses or sis_schedule. The word '全部' (all) weakly implies no filtering is needed, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.

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