Read your cached exam schedule, including rooms and times, with query filtering and pagination; confirm final details on the school page.
读取本人考试安排缓存，包含考场/时间等信息；以学校页面为准。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-open-world safety. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: the data is a cache (缓存) and the school page is authoritative, warning that results may be stale or unofficial.
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 that states purpose, return contents, and a freshness caveat with zero wasted words.
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 an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and data freshness. However, it leaves all parameter behavior (limit, query, offset) unexplained despite 0% schema coverage, which is a clear 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for all 3 parameters (limit, query, offset), and the description does not mention any parameter semantics at all. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 (读取) and resource (本人考试安排缓存), and clarifies the content includes 考场/时间等信息. It distinguishes from siblings like get_schedule/get_grades by focusing on exams, though it does not name an alternative 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?
Provides only a data-reliability caveat (以学校页面为准), not when to use this tool versus get_schedule or other siblings. No explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.