Retrieves upcoming written test and interview schedules with countdowns for the next few days, plus unclosed reminders from the past 3 days, helping you track job-search deadlines.
查询未来若干天内（默认 7 天）以及近 3 天未关闭的笔试与面试待办日程提醒及倒计时。
Args: days_ahead: 检索未来多少天内的日程（默认 7 天）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days_ahead | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: results include unclosed items from the past 3 days in addition to the future window, which the agent could not infer. It does not state read-only nature or sorting/limit behavior beyond that.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema, but the size is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a one-parameter read tool, the description covers the lookup window and the past-3-day inclusion, which is sufficient for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining days_ahead as the future search window and its default of 7 days. It adds little about type or valid range, but the core semantics are conveyed.
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 (查询) and resource (笔试与面试待办日程提醒及倒计时), plus the time scope. It clearly distinguishes the retrieval of schedules from sibling write/analysis tools like tool_generate_resume or tool_track_application, though it never names a sibling 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?
The description implies when to use it (fetching upcoming to-do reminders) and supplies the default window, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or routing against alternatives. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.