获取今日空教室

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains it returns each classroom's free slots and time, and mentions parameter defaults (e.g., campus_id from environment variable). However, it does not specify the response format (e.g., structure of the output), error handling, or data freshness. For a read-only query tool, the basics are covered but details on return structure are missing.

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 composed of three sentences, each serving a clear function: the first states the core purpose, the second describes the return data, and the third details the parameters. It is efficient with no filler, though the return description could be more tightly integrated with parameter details. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action.

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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input parameters and the basic return concept (free slots and time). However, it fails to specify the exact output structure (e.g., whether it returns a list of objects with classroom names and slot arrays), which is critical for an agent to process the result. Error conditions or default behavior for missing environment variables are also not addressed.

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?

Although the input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, the tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the default behavior of campus_id (from environment variable), enumerates its specific values ('01=西土城，04=沙河'), and gives concrete examples for the building filter ('教1', '主楼'). These additions help an agent understand parameter semantics more deeply than the schema alone.

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 queries today's free classrooms from BUPT's mobile educational administration. It specifies the exact resource ('今日空教室') and the action ('查询'), making it distinct from siblings like get_campuses which likely returns campus lists. The verb '查询' combined with the resource and scope ('今日') leaves no ambiguity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies the scope is today's free classrooms, it does not contrast with siblings (e.g., get_schedule for regular schedules, get_today_overview for a broader view). No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information is given, leaving the agent to infer context solely from tool names.

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