get_shuttle_schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's read-only nature is pre-covered. The description adds the semester-only operational constraint, which is valuable behavioral context beyond structured data. It doesn't contradict annotations. Given the annotations carry the safety burden, a middle score is appropriate as the description adds modest extra context.

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 a single focused sentence that states purpose and a key constraint efficiently. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read-only tool and front-loads the key identifying information (the university and campus). No 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the system (강원대학교 도우미), the resource (순환버스/두리버스 시간표), the campus (춘천캠퍼스), and the operational constraint (정규학기). The sibling differentiation could be stronger, but the scope is clear. Output schema absence doesn't matter much for a schedule list.

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 has 0 parameters, so there's no parameter burden. Baseline is 4 for 0-param tools. The description references the schedule being for the Chuncheon campus specifically, which gives context about what the returned data pertains to, compensating for the absence of filters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool queries the on-campus shuttle bus (두리버스) timetable for Kangwon National University Chuncheon campus, with a specific verb '조회합니다' (query/view). It's distinct from siblings like get_next_shuttle and get_bus_arrival which focus on real-time arrival rather than the schedule. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from those siblings.

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 notes the service operates only during regular semester ('정규학기에만 운영'), which is useful usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_next_shuttle or get_bus_arrival, nor does it clarify when NOT to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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