Upcoming program events (practices, games, scrimmages) for the parent's enrolled programs. Covers next 30 days by default. Cancellations included as 'canceled' status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days_ahead | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that cancellations are included with a 'canceled' status, which is useful behavioral info. However, it does not mention sorting order, whether events include past ones within the range, or any rate limits. More detail on the data set behavior would raise the score.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds information: first defines scope and content, second clarifies default range and cancellation handling.
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?
Given the tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides enough to understand what it returns. However, it lacks details like pagination, response format, or whether events are ordered. For a complete picture, a mention of sorting or data limits would be beneficial.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It states a default of 30 days, implying the days_ahead parameter overrides this, but does not explicitly explain the parameter's function or the effect of different values. The description adds some value but not enough for a higher score.
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 clearly states the tool lists upcoming program events for the parent's enrolled programs, specifying event types (practices, games, scrimmages). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_upcoming_events (public) and org_list_program_events (org-specific) by focusing on the parent's enrolled programs. However, it could explicitly contrast with these siblings.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_upcoming_events or org_list_program_events. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only states the default 30-day coverage but does not explain when a user might need to adjust the days_ahead parameter or consider other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are clearly grouped by prefix (admin_, daycare_, org_, parent_) and within each group have distinct, non-overlapping purposes. For example, parent_add_kid vs parent_remove_kid are unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with role prefix and action_noun structure. Minor exceptions like 'nearby_programs' are standalone and do not disrupt the overall consistency.
With 72 tools, this is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools cover multiple user roles, the count is excessive and likely overwhelming for an agent, falling into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers most core workflows for parents, orgs, and admins, but notable gaps exist: there is no tool to create a program or daycare, and admin tools for approving pending claims or discoveries are missing, leaving dead ends.
