sis_second_class

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (5 dimensions, progress per requirement, unfinished count), which is meaningful behavioral context for a read tool, but it says nothing about permission requirements, privacy sensitivity, or whether the data is cached or live.

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 compact sentence with the verb and the payoff (returned fields) front-loaded. Every clause adds information; there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does enough to tell an agent what comes back, but it leaves the caller without any routing signal among the many sibling SIS tools and without any note on access restrictions.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing only the returned content rather than any inputs.

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 pairs a specific verb (取) with a specific resource (第二课堂成绩单) and even enumerates what the payload contains (5 dimensions, per-requirement progress, unfinished-item count). It is clear what the tool does, although nothing in the text distinguishes it from nearby SIS tools such as sis_grades or sis_volunteer_history.

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 statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the resource name alone whether this is the right tool for a given 第二课堂 question.

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