zju_get_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It declares the tool is read-only ('只读'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, extremely concise, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first sentence explains what is retrieved and its content, the second links to another tool and states read-only nature. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: input (with defaults and timezone), output fields, read-only status, and integration with a sibling tool. It lacks details on error handling or empty results, but overall is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 already describes both parameters (date, end_date) with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context: the time zone (东八区, East 8), default behavior (date defaults to today, end_date defaults to date), and the output fields. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 retrieves a course schedule for a day or date range from '智云课堂' (Zhiyun Classroom), listing specific output fields (sub_id, course name, teacher, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zju_get_transcript by noting that sub_id can be passed to that tool, and from other list tools by focusing on schedule data.

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 implicit guidance by mentioning that sub_id can be used with zju_get_transcript, suggesting a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer zju_list_courses), nor does it mention situations where it should not be used.

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