get_terms

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it states the tool was verified read-only against one Strongzhi deployment, which signals a reliability/coverage caveat an agent would otherwise lack.

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?

Two short sentences, no padding, with the core action front-loaded. The trailing verification note is meta-information but short and useful enough to justify its 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-parameter read tool the description is sufficient, with only the vague current=true phrasing leaving a minor interpretive gap.

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 mention of current=true refers to a response field identifying the default term rather than an input, which is a slightly ambiguous framing but harmless given the empty schema.

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: it lists the selectable terms/semesters in the academic system. The resource is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like get_timetable or get_grades, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 — an agent infers it should call this to discover valid term values (e.g., before querying grades or timetable). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any prerequisite call ordering.

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