get_workload_forecastForecast weekly workload across active courses by showing points at stake for the next few weeks, so you can spot crunch weeks early. Read-only.
Show points at stake per week for the next few weeks across all active courses, so you can see crunch weeks coming. Read-only. Use get_week_ahead for item-level detail on the next 7 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| weeks | No | Default 6 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that output is weekly points-at-stake aggregated across active courses, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't clarify what counts as 'points at stake' (e.g., assignments vs quizzes) or how the aggregation is computed.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and the sibling alternative are front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives a high-level sense of the return (weekly points at stake) and names the alternative for detail. It still leaves gaps about what data sources feed the forecast and how 'points at stake' is defined, so it is only minimally complete.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'weeks' parameter with a default of 6. The description implies a next-few-weeks horizon but doesn't add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it shows 'points at stake per week for the next few weeks across all active courses.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_week_ahead by contrasting aggregate weekly workload with item-level detail.
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 names get_week_ahead as the alternative for item-level detail on the next 7 days, giving clear routing guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the intended use case (spotting crunch weeks) is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.