list_exams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not: it discloses nothing about authentication, whether all exams are returned or only upcoming ones, sorting, or result volume. The only behavioral hint is the UTC timezone and room field, which is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short line with no filler, front-loading the resource and source before the field list. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly weakens scanability.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back and over what scope; it names the fields and the UTC convention but leaves scope and volume unspecified. Adequate but with a clear gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The listing of returned fields (course, start/end, room) adds a little value ahead of the response.

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?

"Sınav takvimi" (exam schedule) restates the tool name list_exams rather than stating a verb and scope, but it does add the data source (analytics.ieu.edu.tr) and the returned fields, which lets an agent confirm this is the exam-calendar extractor rather than something else.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list_courses or list_assignments, so an agent must infer that exams are distinct from courses and assignments. Nothing states whether the result is limited to the current term, a student, or the whole institution.

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