sefaria_calendarCalendriers d'étude du jour : parachat hachavoua, haftara, daf yomi, Rambam quotidien, halakha quotidienne… Sans argument : aujourd'hui.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date YYYY-MM-DD (défaut : aujourd'hui). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read operation. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the calendar types and specifying the default date behavior (today if no argument), which helps the agent understand the tool's scope without needing additional structured data.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists calendar types and finishes with a concise default-date note. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or redundant detail.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately sets expectations by listing the content types included in the calendars. It does not describe the return structure, but for this use case, the provided information is sufficient for an agent to understand what will happen.
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 schema fully describes the single optional 'date' parameter with its default value ('aujourd'hui'). The description merely restates this default in the 'sans argument' note, adding no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the bar is met, but no extra meaning is added.
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 that the tool provides daily study calendars (parasha, haftara, daf yomi, Rambam, halakha) with an optional date parameter. It identifies a specific resource and scope, though it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like sefaria_search or sefaria_text, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 description gives a clear usage hint ('Sans argument : aujourd'hui') indicating the default behavior when no date is provided. It establishes a clear context for the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions.
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.
Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: skill loading, calendar, related links, full-text search, and text retrieval. There is no overlap in functionality, making selection unambiguous.
Four of five tools follow the 'sefaria_' prefix pattern, while 'hebrewbooks_skill' deviates slightly. The naming is still predictable and readable, with only minor inconsistency.
Five tools is well-scoped for a Torah study server, covering the essential operations without bloat. Each tool earns its place.
The set covers text retrieval, search, related texts, and daily study schedules, addressing the core domain. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct copy/export), but the workflow is functional.